Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why would someone say this about vaccines? Is it odd?

586 replies

PuzzlingPanda · 09/03/2016 19:59

Was in a health food shop today and mentioned an ongoing issue I'm having with one of my do.

The man mentioned he thought the biggest thing going wrong with our children was all the vaccines they receive. He said they full of nasties, designed to make people ill.

It could be put down to a man having a pointless rant but why would he say this? Is there any sort of truth in it?

Not the first time I've heard negative things about vaccines.

Now I'm worried about it.

OP posts:
ollieplimsoles · 10/03/2016 20:03

I agree that its not as clean cut as vaxxers and anti vaxxers, there are people in the middle, I'm one of them. We delayed dds schedule, to research, we declined rota virus drops and flu jabs.

I just hated the way this particular group of anti vaxxers made me feel, like I was stupid, for considering vaccinations for my child.

I'm ready to accept that sometimes being so pro vaccinations makes us just as bad and them and we don't do concerned parents any good.

I just don't like the way they push doctors opinions aside, I would tell anyone worried about getting the vaccines to talk to their doctor about their concerns. Don't just read something online and roll with it.

You can't cure tetanus, men b or measles with fucking arnica and breast milk!

Roonerspism · 10/03/2016 20:07

booboos I find the tone of your posts deeply offensive.

BertrandRussell · 10/03/2016 20:09

Why? You're not an anti vaxxer, are you?

ollieplimsoles · 10/03/2016 20:15

sugar your poem is amazing, has me in tears Flowers

Y0uCann0tBeSer10us · 10/03/2016 20:15

I agree that the incredibly aggressive tone towards anyone deemed an 'anti-vaxxer' (I also hate the 'x's, what's that about?) is offensive and unnecessary. There are plenty of legitimate concerns surrounding aspects of the schedule, and trying to shut down debate by declaring anyone with concerns to be a 'cretin' or stupid isn't helpful. Lots of intelligent, educated people (including Drs and scientists) have some concerns. Ironically I think it's probably more likely to put people off vaccines if they're wavering about it!

pigeonpoo · 10/03/2016 20:16

Anti-vaxxers are cretins.
Cretins should not be allowed to make medical decisions on behalf of vulnerable, incompetent others.
Therefore vaccinations should be compulsory for all children (unless there is a valid medical exemption).

I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I still found it offensive.

They're not necessarily cretins. They may be misguided, frightened, or they might be parents/family members of a child who either was/or they believe to be - injured by a vaccine. It's possible at the age we start the vaccine schedule we don't know if there's a valid medical reason for exemption - some problems won't show up till later on.

Having said all that - I "personally" would prefer vaccines were mandatory. Iv explained upthread why I "personally" would prefer it.

Roonerspism · 10/03/2016 20:17

What does "anti-vaxxer" even mean?

Yes, I vaccinate my children. But I'm broad minded enough to understand there are risks involved.

You know what I'm uncomfortable about? That there is the rise of so many diseases, from autoimmune problems to juvenile arthritis to the allergies and asthma that are now common place.

And no one really knows why.

Vaccines? Who knows. But the studies looking at vaccine safety don't seem to consider long term effects. Or look in the long term for a comparison between that vaccine and the unvaccinated. Largely because it's impossible to do so.

This bothers me. Bothers me enough to say "no thanks" to vaccines such as flu or rotavirus. And be extremely grateful for vaccines such as Men B or Polio.

GreatFuckability · 10/03/2016 20:18

I find it offensive too rooner and whilst people continue to spout such vitriol on either end of the spectrum on this issue, those in the middle will never get to discuss this topic in a logical, non offensive way v

Y0uCann0tBeSer10us · 10/03/2016 20:21

Very well said rooner.

bumbleymummy · 10/03/2016 20:25

Rooners, on MN anyone who voices concerns about the safety/effectiveness of timing of any vaccine on the UK schedule can be called 'anti-vax' - even if they've vaccinated their children. It's a strange old place sometimes.

BertrandRussell · 10/03/2016 20:30

No. An "anti vaxer" (a name they coined themselves, apparently) is someone who is opposed on principle to vaccinations, and posts reams of cherry picking and pseudoscience, who talks about "nasties" in vaccines, says they don't work, are designed to make children ill and consider Andrew Wakefield to be a misunderstood martyr.

There is at least one on this thread.

pigeonpoo · 10/03/2016 20:31

those in the middle will never get to discuss this topic in a logical, non offensive way v

I sometimes wish there could be a board/forum for those in the middle. I really struggled making a decision and felt outcast and ridiculed from both sides and incredibly frightened by both sides. I know in reality it would be trolled too much to keep up but it's a shame that to have that middle discussion or the support while making decisions - you have to pay for it.

Alisvolatpropiis · 10/03/2016 20:33

Isn't the rise of asthma likely due pollution etc? I assumed it was, I appreciate there is no conclusive medical evidence of that. It just seems to make sense.

BertrandRussell · 10/03/2016 20:36

I'm not sure what "in the middle" means, though. Everybody agrees that ther are some children who cannot be vaccinated,band everyone agrees that vaccines can have side effects ( there isn't anything that works that doesn't)

Apart from that, there really isn't any evidence to support different schedules, or anything like that.

pigeonpoo · 10/03/2016 20:41

I'm not sure what "in the middle" means, though. Everybody agrees that ther are some children who cannot be vaccinated,band everyone agrees that vaccines can have side effects ( there isn't anything that works that doesn't)

Everybody really doesn't agree. As evidenced on this thread. I suppose in the middle are those who won't attack or ridicule another persons decision or their concerns whilst making a decision.

ollieplimsoles · 10/03/2016 20:43

No evidence for different schedules Bertrand, we delayed while we researched.

I think people in the middle have some vaccines but not all of them, or attempt to get the mmr jab in separate jabs. Things like that.

BertrandRussell · 10/03/2016 20:45

"Everybody really doesn't agree. As evidenced on this thread."

Really? I don't see anyone not agreeing with that.

And there are a lot of people in this area who ar dangerous and should be ridiculed. Because they do a lot of damage (like the OP's person in the health food shop) and it is absolutely no use even trying to reason with them.

pigeonpoo · 10/03/2016 20:48

I don't think ridicule is ever helpful. It pushes people into defensiveness of their opinion rather than motivates them to look at it further.

BertrandRussell · 10/03/2016 20:51

With some people there is no point trying to change their minds. You can only try to stop them drawing others into their conspiracy filled world.

leedy · 10/03/2016 20:55

"have you been re-vaccinated for measles/mumps/rubella/meningitis etc etc within the last 5 years?"

Why would I need to? I had a rubella vaccine when I was twelve and I was still immune to it per blood tests in pregnancy 28 years later (3 years ago), so unless it's suddenly worn off, I'm pretty sure I'm not a potential rubella vector. I also had measles as a child (still immune), and cunningly managed to become immune to chicken pox without having any symptoms.

The main thing we routinely vaccinate against now and that I might be exposed to, and that I'm really not sure of my immune status about (as I was neither vaccinated against it nor had it) is mumps. Oh, and I think my last tetanus jab has probably worn off by now but that's not something you can infect other people with.

Y0uCann0tBeSer10us · 10/03/2016 20:57

It's not just about changing their mind though Bertrand. Anyone in the middle is more likely to be persuaded by the more rational sounding argument. Anyone who isn't sure whether a vaccine is worth getting may see the pro-vaccine stance as consisting of overly aggressive insults rather than reasoned argument and it may push them the other way.

GreatFuckability · 10/03/2016 20:59

For me being in the middle means I can see it from all sides and that I keep my opinion to myself and would never call another person a cretin or whatever because they saw things differently to me. Its not making huge assumptions about someone based on their legal right to do as they see fit with their own child. I don't think ridicule and nastiness does anyone any good and it certainly isn't the way to make someone see things differently.

Y0uCann0tBeSer10us · 10/03/2016 21:03

leedy Without trying to pick a fight (honestly, I'm not), there are also pneumococcal bacteria, Hib (both are potential causes of meningitis), and whooping cough. Most children who get whooping cough catch it from adults as adults often don't realise they have it, and have lost previous immunity (whether from vaccine or disease).

ollieplimsoles · 10/03/2016 21:07

most children who get whooping cough catch it from adults as adults often don't realise they have it

This is all the more reason to have children vaccinated. They are there to protect those with weaker or under developed immune systems

pigeonpoo · 10/03/2016 21:07

It's not just about changing their mind though Bertrand. Anyone in the middle is more likely to be persuaded by the more rational sounding argument. Anyone who isn't sure whether a vaccine is worth getting may see the pro-vaccine stance as consisting of overly aggressive insults rather than reasoned argument and it may push them the other way.

This. ^^