To think this takes not vaccinating to a whole new level

[Swanlaked]

DD has a child at school who has cancer. The school sent a letter home asking all parents to please think about giving their child the MMR if they haven't had it and also to inform them immediately if any child was in contact with chicken pox.

One of the mums at the school is still refusing to have her 3DC vaccinated. No health issues it's big pharma/poison/conspiracy theory crap

AIBU at this point to think the school should seek removal of the children and tell the bloody thicko to find another school for them?

Chicken pox a prime example of that.

God knows how long it went unnoticed with dd. She's had a cold I'd sent her room pre school and taken her it etc

She had so few spots I nearly missed it all together I wouldn't have done if I'd known but I didn't

My nan's uncle was wheelchair bound because of polio.

My grandmother, having seen him suffer through polio infection, made damn sure every one of her kids was vaccinated and that all her grandchildren were.

many of us don't have first hand knowledge of these diseases.

tetnus for example is found in soil. Even here in the UK. You can also get it from animal bites and scratches. How many of you anti-vaxxers have pets? The safest way to prevent a tetnus infection is to vaccinated your kids. That way they can go outside an play in the dirt without you having to worry about every cut and scrape they have and the possibility of them contracting it.

www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/understanding-tetanus-treatment

What Are the Treatments for Tetanus?

If tetanus does develop, seek hospital treatment immediately. This includes wound care, a course of antibiotics, and an injection of tetanus antitoxin. You may receive medications such as chlorpromazine or diazepam to control muscle spasms, or a short-acting barbiturate for sedation. You may require the aid of an artificial respirator or other life-support measures during the several weeks needed for the disease to run its course.

Is it really worth this risk? the risk of needing a long list of drugs with varying side effects just for the sake of not having one immunisation?

Tetnus also routinely kills babies.

~~ Neonatal tetanus is a form of generalized tetanus in newborn infants that do not have protective passive immunity because the mother is not immune. It usually occurs through infection of the unhealed umbilical stump, particularly when the stump is cut with an unsterile instrument. Neonatal tetanus is estimated to kill over 200,000 newborns each year; almost all these deaths occur in developing countries while it is very rare in developed nations. ~~

www.wpro.who.int/immunization/factsheets/tetanus_nt/en/

an unvaccinated mother can risk the life of her newborn. If anything this is a case to make damn sure your daughter is protected against tetnus even if it is rare here in the first world. Its a preventable disease. A risk we can irradiate by making sure we are immunised.

But If you still insist on not vaccinating perhaps you should donate the cost to a charity so mothers who do not have any choice about vaccination, because its not available, can. You'll find all of them will jump at the chance of doing anything to prevent their children from dying too soon.

natalia I understand that noone is suggesting pinning down kids to inject them (at least I hope noone is - these threads do have a habit of bringing out extreme views on all sides!).

There are however problems with that approach. Firstly, it's hard to determine who is medically at risk of vaccines as not a lot is known about this and it can be difficult to get HCPs to acknowledge that anything more serious than a fever and redness can occur. Secondly, who poses a risk is also tricky, as this would include many (most?) adults whose immunity has either worn off or was never there (because they're too old to have been offered vaccines routinely) as well as vaccinated children who didn't respond well. In most cases we can't identify members of either group. Diseases don't care why someone isn't immune, and do these people are just as capable of passing it on to the vulnerable. If the aim is to protect, then logically everyone, of all ages, should be tested for immunity and given vaccines if found to not be immune.

We should also put some thought into what diseases we're considering a threat. Flu can be dangerous to the immunosuppressed, but the live vaccine carries risks to children, and they're not even the main beneficiaries. Can they morally be punished for not receiving that vaccine?

I must admit I am struggling with this one.
My mom is currently undergoing chemo, she is in round three so her immunity is low but she is doing well, her friend went to visit her yesterday as she was off work. She wasn't working because she had shigles, I was so mad when I found out, what idiot doesn't think that through?!

I can see why the school told parents to re think and I would be furious if my child caught something because of someone else's refusal to vaccinate.

The reason why parents have the luxury to choose is because the majority of people do vaccinate therefore these hoorendous illnesses are under control.

We all do our best to protect our children, for me that means vaccinations, and I would consider it incredibly careless on the parents behalf who despite knowing others vulnerability, still did nothing.

What is the "Big Pharma conspiracy theory"? Surely not people thinking big pharma are knowingly making vaccines that harm children somehow for big pharma's benefit??

"Surely not people thinking big pharma are knowingly making vaccines that harm children somehow for big pharma's benefit?"

You mean you seriously cannot think of any benefit to Big Pharma from making and selling vaccines? It's not a conspiracy, it is the wheels of commerce.

It is also well known that verification procedures for published research are not up to scratch, as the head of the New England Medical Journal, among others, is on record as saying. And there has never been any research comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children.

The asthma-measles thing isn't true. The Guinea-Bissau correlation doesn't stack up against studies from other countries, including studies that show a positive association between measles infection and asthma. Link here.

Someone way up thread said people who didn't want to vaccinate should be left alone and not bullied. I'd be very happy to do that - leave them to home educate their children, too. Choices have consequences, and the worst impacts of our own personal choices shouldn't be disproportionately negative to other people's children even if there are minuscule risks to our own.

ChuffMuffin smallpox is one. I always think of TB. over 30,000 people died of TB in 1913 in the UK. By 2013 it was only about 300. In the 50's when they bought out the vaccine the death rate by half immediatly and declined rapidly after that.
In London and other cities TB is on the rise as people are coming from countries with high rates and no vacine. Over crowded conditions and less vacinations could very well lead to an epidemic and a spike in the death rate that has been low for 70 years.

Some of the regular diseases that people are vaccinated against like diptheria and measles may not have the death rate like TB. Men C or Tetanus but they come with severe life-long complications and horrific symptoms like skin lesions. Who would risk that? There's enough in the world already, without throwing into the mix things that could easily be prevented.

My friend not only does not vacinate her son but she thinks nothing of taking him out of his European bubble to Jamaica, North Africa and Brazil. She claims he'll be fine because his lack of poison in his body means he has a really strong immune system. There are not enough hours in the day to process just how fucking stupid that is.

And there has never been any research comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children.

On what basis?

Of course I can think of the benefit to big pharma of making and selling vaccines, and antibodies and small molecule drugs and everything else they make. What I asked was do people actually believe big pharma make vaccines that they know will HARM children. I don't know what the conspiracy theory is, that's why I asked.

And there has never been any research comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children.

What do you mean by this?

I came on to point out that flu can be a killer as well. 1918 flu pandemic, swine flu, avian flu...

I totally agree that people have forgotten how serious so called childhood illnesses can be. They've become complacent and arrogant.

My children have had and will have every single vaccination they are entitled to until they are legally old enough to decide for themselves.

Oh smallpox. So every jab is fine so shush y'all

"Oh smallpox. So every jab is fine so shush y'all"

Everything that works can have side effects.

I don't know why anti vaccination people keep saying anyone says they are 100% risk free. I have never heard anyone say they are.

Caipira, re. the increase in TB cases - the BCG vaccine is not as effective against pulmonary TB. New vaccines/treatments are currently being researched. WHO

"I don't know why anti vaccination people keep saying anyone says they are 100% risk free."

Because it's a fun straw man for them to argue with rather than dealing with the actual issues?

That's great Bumbleymummy, but it is active TB that is on the rise in London, with some parts of London having higher rates than Rwanda. It is active TB that the BCG helps prevent.

Well it's the same as saying smallpox = argument over

and according to the London School of Hygine and Tropical Medicine it might be more effective against pulmonary TB than previously thought

Yanbu. My niece has cancer. If you think it's fine to risk her life just because you Google an article you are a cunt.

If you think your 3 second Google search has given you more knowledge than the thousands upon thousands of hours actual, qualified medical researchers have put in. Then you're a thick cunt.

If you fail to protect your children from entirely re-enable diseases just so you can sit stroking your own fucking ego and patting yourself on the back then you should have your kids removed because you are obviously not capable of making sound decisions.

"Well it's the same as saying smallpox = argument over"

Nobody's saying that either!

But there's no need to bring smallpox up. It's irrelevant

My dc haven't had the mmr but have had single measles. If there was more choice they could also have had single mumps and rubella but with our medical history there was no way I was risking all three together. Dd is old enough now to understand the risks and has also chosen not to have it.
I could never forgive myself if they became one of the 1:50,000 vaccine damaged children

"I don't know why anti vaccination people keep saying anyone says they are 100% risk free. I have never heard anyone say they are."

I'm not anti-vaccination so this obviously wasn't aimed at me, but I think it's fair to say that the culture (in medicine and beyond) downplays the risks of vaccination to an extent. I think a lot of people do believe that serious adverse effects of vaccination are so rare as to be a negligible risk, and I often hear people talking about vaccines being safe in a way that doesn't acknowledge the risk of serious harm. I've heard a lot of people, including HCPs if you ask them, talking about the risks of serious adverse reactions as being "1 in a million" or less, when the data shows they're much more likely than that. (If you don't specifically ask HCPs I find that they give you a leaflet that mentions the most common and milder side effects but glosses over more serious ones.) People also tend to assume all vaccines are the same in terms of safety, effectiveness, necessity, when this can vary massively too.

Ironically, I think in some cases I think it would be better to be honest about it and say "there's a 1:1000 chance that your child will get convulsions with the MMR", or "it's quite likely that the rotavirus vaccine will give your baby vomiting and diarrhoea" and so on, as it would build more trust in the official advice.

Well it's the same as saying smallpox = argument over

Small pox is not something that the other side uses to attempt to shut down the debate. It is just that there is nothing negative about it and it has nothing that can be used to back up the claims of the anti-vaccers.