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?

How is it not true?

Anyone who supports Wakefield is an idiot. The Wakefield study was flawed and unethical on so many levels that it's staggering.

There have been many other studies showing no link between MMR and autism, one Wakefield-sponsored renunciation just cuts no scientific ice. But then some people seem to think that science = conspiracy. It's very sad.

Ellsteeth so totally agree with you. Thank you

Pointythings: there are so many things I could say to you about your post. But that's a long, long conversation. I get the impression from the vehemence of your post and the hyperbole you employ that you probably aren't interested in anyone who disagrees with you. So I won't, thanks. I'll just remain content that people are still free in this country to behave as they think appropriate with regard to vaccinations.

Globe Newswire isn't a news website, despite its name, and that isn't a news article, despite the way they've written the opening paragraph.

It's a press release distribution service, and that's a press release written by the producers of an anti-vaccine film.

Oh god, i thought we had got past mmr vaccine=autism

Winchester - no: Really not what? He wasn't responsible for the deaths of children? Come on!! Ask any reputable scientist who knows anything about this!! Jeez..!!

I do believe Princess Diana was murdered though. Maybe we should move on to discussing that conspiracy theory instead - it might be more interesting...!!

This is truly, truly pitiful. It's so sad. It's as if the appeal to authority now almost universally causes people to lose the ability to think critically.

No one vaccinates their child for the benefit of someone else. They do it because they think it's in their child's best interest.
People who don't vaccinate believe the same!

This!

I vaccinated my children for selfish reasons, I believed it was best for them
C'mon do any of you shouting "selfish" at non vaxers believe the vaccines are not in the best interest of your own child, and just did it for selfless herd immunity? No. Didn't think so.

Everyone is just doing what they think is best for their own child, and rightly so.

Yes misinformation needs to be addressed, but nobody is going to listen to you if you call them names.

I do feel sorry for children who have the full load of vaccines and then 'inexplicably' become part of the epidemic of atopic and immune disorders. The parents who suffer this, who were once vaccine believers, find themselves outcasts and dismissed, abandoned.

But you go ahead and call names. Maybe some kids will get vaccinated because of your shouting and shaming, and maybe they'll be injured or damaged. But you can just move on, and shout and shame others. You won't know about it. And if the mothers come on here, and tell their stories, you'll ridicule and dismiss them too.

This is truly, truly pitiful. It's so sad. It's as if the appeal to authority now almost universally causes people to lose the ability to think critically

What, like checking the sources of the information they post to see if they are in any way objective or contain any verifiable facts?

YANBU, if parents refuse to vaccinate children who are able to be vaccinated, they shouldn't be allowed to send their children to mainstream schools. There should be other options in place to ensure that all children have access to education, but also that immuno-compromised children aren't at unnecessary risk because of the daft choices of anti-vaxers.

Winchester, no one is ridiculing or dismissing you. They are doing that to some very tenuous and easily-refuted information you have chosen to post, and some logically-wobbly arguments such as your insistence that we should only talk about vaccines that haven't completely eradicated diseases from the planet yet.

People are listening. But they are disagreeing because you have yet to say a single thing that can be backed by S kidnap except for the role of Vitamin A deficiency in measles (though there is of course still a toxic dose in a measles patient.)

S kidnap? Science.

Ells teeth, when the Lancet paper came out in 1998 the single measles vaccine was still available on the NHS. It was withdrawn 6 months later. I think that was a very bad decision. If it had been kept available then children could still have been vaccinated against measles while the concerns about the MMR were being investigated.

Why on earth would someone look at the effectiveness/side effects of the smallpox vaccine when they were trying to make a decision about giving their child the 5-in-1/MMR/MenB Vaccine. Of course it isn't relevant.

"cherry-picked and highly edited"

You can't cherry-pick and edit highly incriminating statements into being.

I think some people have the wrong idea about scientists and how academic works. They're not objective. They're often funded by commercial businesses. They have their own axes to grind. They're not searching for truth as such. Not trying to unturn stones and look beneath them.

Yes, they are, Jassy.

   By failure of critical thinking, I mean for example: absolutely and wholly dismissing the accounts of vaccine damage from parents where the injury was not acknowledged by the authorities.  Out of hand. 

 This, alone, is enough to make a nonsense of official adverse event statistics.  Yet they are absolutely and wholly dismissed on the grounds that official adverse events statistics show that the parents must be wrong. 

 It is an entirely circular argument. So that making the case for further inquiry  requires no external reference, or paper, or link.  It requires only the ability to think with process.  

  Of course having dismissed these parents, you have no need to look further into the issue.  So you wouldn't look, for example, at the safety studies of the HPV vaccine, after reading of cases of unrecorded adverse events.  You wouldn't notice that in two of the three studies cited for safety, the control used included the ingredient that is suspected of causing severe reactions - thus confounding the background adverse events figures. 

Your case relies on he appeal to authority. And this relies on trust. You can't afford for that trust to be dented. Thus it's absolutely necessary for you to be wholly dismissive. It only takes one unrecorded genuine vaccine reaction to distort and damage your case. And there are many, many unrecorded vaccine adverse events.

In a debate about vaccines, smallpox and polio are both valid, because there are plenty of anti-vaxxers who say that vaccination dos not work. Smallpox and polio prove that they do. I agree that they aren't relevant to the specific question of whether a parent should go for the MMR, but this debate is broader than that, surely?

I'm making my post clearer: I have corrected in capitals.

By failure of critical thinking, I mean for example: absolutely and wholly dismissing accounts of vaccine damage from parents where the injury was not acknowledged by the authorities. Out of hand.

THESE, alone, are enough to make a nonsense of official adverse event statistics. Yet THE PARENTS' ACCOUNTS are absolutely and wholly dismissed on the grounds that official adverse events statistics show that the parents must be wrong.

It is an entirely circular argument.

It's like saying 'chemotherapy works'

well sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't

depends on the product

Your case relies on he appeal to authority. And this relies on trust. You can't afford for that trust to be dented. Thus it's absolutely necessary for you to be wholly dismissive. It only takes one unrecorded genuine vaccine reaction to distort and damage your case. And there are many, many unrecorded vaccine adverse events

Nope. You've got my approach all wrong, I'm afraid, though I can see why it fits with the paradigm you've designed for yourself. The idea that people who disagree with you could have done an equal amount of critical thinking and arrived at an entirely different conclusion is uncomfortable, I get that.

Now, did you know you were posting a movie PR press release, or did you not realise that the source of the information you'd linked to wasn't reliable?

Yes - I knew - that's why I left the move press release part out it wasn't relevant to the facts of Dr Thomspon's whistle blowing.

Really, I've got your approach all wrong? So you acknowledge that there are unrecorded, genuine cases of vaccine damage?

ive not rtft so apologies, but I've not seen any actual science on the first few pages.

There are no comparitive studies on unvaccinated vs vaccinated children and health outcomes. None. Worth considering why when you consider how huge the health industry is and the amount of studies for other health issues that are going on at any given time.

What I would say is that the school in sending a letter out encouraging non vaccinated children to catch-up with the recommended program, are unwittingly putting the immune suppressed child at risk, because some vaccines are live virus vaccines. They shed the virus, and could make the immune supressed child very ill with the very illnesses everyone hopes it avoids.