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?

Viperama...you're very right. I remember a doctor advising a relative who was going through cancer treatment to avoid those who had been vaccinated.

I should add that virus shedding is temporary, but a known risk just the same, for up to 10 days post vax

Several people have claimed there are no studies about vaccinated v unvaccinated children. I guess they mean comparing their health?
I'm not a scientist but what's wrong with those? Just first random ones that pop up when googling
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2260220
www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(13)01860-5/abstract
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2011.566203

I got mumps aged 38 which led to me having swollen ovaries. Please get your kids vaccinated. There is no link between MMR and autism.

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

What facts? It is difficult to derive what the facts are from biased press releases. Objective sources, you see, otherwise people find it you've been a by dishonest and it undermines yor case. If the best evidence you have for someone's veracity is a movie press release, it isn't terribly convincing.

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

I simply don't know with enough authority to be didactic either way. It's obviously a highly emotional area for many, and often difficult for absolute certainty to exist.

You don't know either way. So why are you so dismissive of those who say that there ARE unrecorded adverse vaccine events, and that therefore official adverse events statistics cannot be trusted?

LadyConstance: How is it not true. Stun me

No, that doesn't work. You don't get to demand that someone disprove a negative. You make the assertion, you justify it.

Whaa? Lady Constance - it is self evidently true that information about the benefits and disbenefits of a product derives entirely from the outcomes of the product's use.

Not from the outcomes of a different product.

I repeat - this is not hard to understand.

I'm afraid if you want me to believe that you are right, you will have to show me how information about the benefits and disbenefits of Product A can be derived from the use of the Product B and not Product A.

Even if you don't believe there's a link between the MMR and Autism you cannot deny that vaccines can cause damage in other ways. The Government admit it. The manufacturer's of the vaccines admit it.
Until there is a guarantee of safety I will not vaccinate my children.

My uncle is sterile having contracted mumps as an adult. A BF has damaged eyesight from measles as a child. I had whooping cough a few years ago that went undiagnosed for weeks because no one expected me to have it. I can fully understand why it kills babies - I thought I was going to die when I couldn't breathe - terrifying.
20 years ago when DS1 was a toddler I spent an evening with several elderly ladies. They all had friends and family who had died from diptheria and other childhood diseases. They were absolutely baffled that many of my friends were so anti vax. All they could remember was the misery and sobbing mothers.... We forget what these diseases used to do ..

Maybe some kids will get vaccinated because of your shouting and shaming, and maybe they'll be injured or damaged.

And maybe some kids will not get vaccinated because of yours, and maybe they will catch the illnesses in question and be injured, damaged or killed. Or pass the infections on to immuno-compromised children and injure or kill them. And the evidence proves that the dangers of that happening are many times greater.

jassy yes. If you're talking about links to your argument Atleast read them to check they actually make your argument.

LadyConstance: Until you are willing to address the central flaws in your arguments there's no point in talking to you.

1. The relevance of smallpox
2. The refusal to acknowledge unrecorded vaccine injuries

You don't know either way. So why are you so dismissive of those who say that there ARE unrecorded adverse vaccine events, and that therefore official adverse events statistics cannot be trusted?

Well, no, you've oversimplified what I said; why?

But can you point me to where I have done that, please?

There's risks for anything. There are far greater risks of having the disease and then passing it to others.
There are risks to medication, would people deny their children life saving medication? There are always side effects with those.

Until there is a guarantee of safety I will not vaccinate my children.

Do your children travel by car or aeroplane? Do they eat grapes?

I'm sure there are unrecorded cases of vaccine damage. I would never dismiss parents whose children have been vaccine damaged because I have never claimed that vaccines are 100% safe for everyone. Those are words you have put in previous posters' mouths, winchester. But you are presenting this as a zero-sum game and it is not - it is all about cost-benefit. For the vast majority of children, vaccines are safe, effective and prevent serious disease. For a small minority of children, vaccines are not effective. For a very small minority, vaccines are harmful. We need to get away from stupid anti-scientific big pharma conspiracy stuff and start doing more research into why some children cannot tolerate the current vaccines. Science is not the enemy.

winchester you do make me laugh, by the way. I work in health research. I have seen research studies pulled because the medicine under investigation was showing ineffectiveness or harm early on. The research establishment is not composed of money-hungry mad scientists with huge egos. Where people are involved, things sometimes go wrong, but painting science as the enemy just shows how little people know about how science and research work in real life.

Where's the evidence that the risk of having the disease vs the vaccine are far greater? Do you have figures?

One day when driving I had to stop suddenly and got a bruise from the seatbelt. As long as their safety is not 100% guaranteed, my family is not using seat belts any more.

I get the problem, Winchester. You are framing your points in terms of where you want the discussion to go, whereas the discussion on this thread is, at least apart, about assertions vaccination doesn't work or is dangerous or is down to Big Pharma. Smallpox and polio are examples of vaccines that have worked. Indeed, smallpox really drives a large hole into the Big Pharma conspiracy theory: if Big Pharma was solely in it for the profit, it wouldn't have produced a vaccination that would, if and when successful, render itself obsolete.

Furthermore, you can't look at vaccines as wholly different products, because what we learn from one vaccine feeds into the development of the next, and so on and so on. So, again, all vaccines are relevant.

sarah if you want guarantees of safety you had better not be giving your children Calpol, or letting them go outside, or letting them - well, do or eat or breathe anything, really. What a daft argument.

Until there is a guarantee of safety I will not vaccinate my children

sarahb, I take it therefore that you are satisfied that your children are guaranteed to be safe without vaccination? Could you tell us the basis for that?

There are so many allergies and auto immune diseases in my family...I think those particular groups of people are more likely to have a reaction to vaccines.

Katharina, sorry, just glancing over them quickly but...

Paper 1conflicts of interest -

Dr Schlaud was the lead investigator of an epidemiological study of deaths in children aged 2–24 months (TOKEN Study) in 2004–2009, which was jointly funded by the Federal Ministry of Health, the Paul Ehrlich-Institute, Sanofi Pasteur, and Glaxo Smith Kline.

Dr Poethko-Müller was responsible for coordinating the study mentioned before.

Paper 2 Seems to be a study in Nigeria (developing country)

Paper 3 Conflicts of interest:

"has received payment for manuscript preparation from Novartis; and has received travel support from Chiesi, Allergopharma, Abbott, Infectopharm, and Novartis"

"has received payment for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp Dohme, Forest Labs, Roche, Novartis..."

"has received payment for lectures from Symbiopharm and GlaxoSmithKline."

Paper 4 Philippines (developing country)