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?

Winchester, you are once again introducing irrelevancies. My posts related to the relevance of smallpox. They have nothing whatsoever to do with unrecorded vaccine injuries, which is a separate topic. Dragging it in does make you look a trifle desperate.

Excuse me LadyConstance: These are central points. Everything you say about vaccinations is based on a certain risk/benefit ratio which is based on official vaccine adverse event statistics.

It is central to your case that your refuse to acknowledge unrecorded adverse events. Until this is addressed, the rest is peripheral.

I know it's going to be hard for you to answer.

sarah that information changes things somewhat - caution is fair enough with that history. But nearly every pro-vax person on here agrees there should be medical exemptions.

pointythings...I'm sure Calpol is much safer than the measles vaccine. Just take a look at the ingredients list.
I have researched this over years and made my decision. I don't judge those who vaccinate and certainly wouldn't insult them by calling their arguments 'daft'.

pointy things "start doing more research into why some children cannot tolerate the current vaccines."

^ This

Again not a scientist but wouldn't it be quite difficult to find any that have no ties to the industry? Have never given any sponsored lectures etc. Are you saying the studies are therefore fraudulent?

"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."

What sort of guarantee do you want?

And by the way, you still haven't proved that you can tell anything at all about Vaccine A by looking at the outcomes from Vaccine B.

Good luck with that one too .

posted too soon - and the argument was that there are NO studies whatsoever. We can of course discuss the quality, but there certainly are studies.

In fact it's rather offensive to call vaccine damage reports 'irrelevancies'. I've just noticed that. Still it proves my point I guess.

Katharina, you just asked what might be wrong with them. I doubt people are going to be happy with a study comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated children where the authors have received funding from vaccine manufacturers.

"It is central to your case that your refuse to acknowledge unrecorded adverse events. Until this is addressed, the rest is peripheral."

What do you mean? Do you mean events that the parents think are consequent on vaccination but the medics don't? If so, why are your u sonsure the parents are right and the medics wrong?

pointythings...I'm sure Calpol is much safer than the measles vaccine. Just take a look at the ingredients list.

Let's - paracetamol side effects:

As well as its needed effects, acetaminophen (the active ingredient contained in Paracetamol) may cause unwanted side effects that require medical attention.

Hepatic
Common (1% to 10%): Increased aspartate aminotransferase
Rare (less than 0.1%): Increased hepatic transaminases
Frequency not reported: Liver failure[Ref]

Gastrointestinal
Very common (10% or more): Nausea (up to 34%), Vomiting (up to 15%)
Common (1% to 10%): Abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, dyspepsia, enlarged abdomen
Frequency not reported: Dry mouth[Ref]

Hypersensitivity
Postmarketing reports: Anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions[Ref]

Hematologic
Common (1% to 10%): Anemia, postoperative hemorrhage
Very rare (less than 0.01%): Thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, neutropenia[Ref]

Dermatologic
Common (1% to 10%): Rash, pruritus
Rare (less than 0.1%): Serious skin reactions such as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis
Very rare (less than 0.01%): Pemphigoid reaction, pustular rash, Lyell syndrome
:[Ref]

Respiratory
Common (1% to 10%): Dyspnea, abnormal breath sounds, pulmonary edema, hypoxia, pleural effusion, stridor, wheezing, coughing[Ref]

Cardiovascular
Common (1% to 10%): Peripheral edema, hypertension, hypotension, tachycardia, chest pain[Ref]

Metabolic
Common (1% to 10%): Hypokalemia, hyperglycemia[Ref]

Nervous system
Common (1% to 10%): Headache, dizziness
Frequency not reported: Dystonia

Musculoskeletal
Common (1% to 10%): Muscle spasms, trismus

Psychiatric
Common (1% to 10%): Insomnia, anxiety

Genitourinary
Common (1% to 10%): Oliguria

Local
Common (1% to 10%): Infusion site pain, injection site reactions

Ocular
Common (1% to 10%): Periorbital edema

Other
Common (1% to 10%): Pyrexia, fatigue
Rare (0.01% to 0.1%): Malaise

sarah people have reactions to paracetamol and ibrophen.
Children have been ill from it.
It's in the news every year.
There are risks with every thing.
Every painkiller comes with a warning label.
I also have immune disorder, amongst other things.

And absolutely it is right to challenge the funding and bias of studies.

Which is what I was doing earlier to the experts listed on the International Medical Council on Vaccines. All of the random three I googled have something to sell. Andrew Wakefield had a patent on a single vaccine.

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.

It's a pretty central point to make the points you're making, don't you think? The whole basis for the other side of the argument hangs on this. And you're happy to make your mind up without actually knowing? That's less than objective.

I read the OP, can't even read the rest of the post as I already have The Rage. Knowingly risking an ill child's life....smh all day.

What do you mean? Do you mean events that the parents think are consequent on vaccination but the medics don't? If so, why are your u son sure the parents are right and the medics wrong?

Yes, this is what I mean. They are not all right. However you have to believe that they are all wrong. Every last one of them. Why do you believe that?

I notice the appeal to authority there - the medics. This is what I referred to in an earlier post.

Reading this thread, I'm struck by how much faith the public has in scientists. Despite knowing how the funding works, and much publicised times when science has been shown to be wrong or biased. I grew up in this environment and they are not objective. Not unbiased. Scientists have their pet theories and are keen to highlight this or that. They make choices about what to explore and what to ignore. Statistics can be juggled in extraordinary ways. Hard to believe that none of this would be going on, given that a drug company are paying your salary and will be funding your pet projects for the rest of your career. They are also paying you to ask certain questions and to look as little as possible at other questions.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, necessarily. But there is no justification for unquestioning belief in the objectivity of science or certainty that somebody somewhere will have thoroughly looked into any areas of concern and come to a robust, trust-worthy conclusion that it's all fine.

I wasn't appealing to authority. I was just trying to find out what you meant- you might have meant events that the parents decided not to report.

How do you decide who is right? The parents who say that their child has had a vaccine related event, or the people who say it was unrelated?

Yes: Gonetosee, I do believe it's a matter of faith. The absence of critical thinking is marked. I almost used the word 'cult' earlier. Thou shalt not question our Lord Vaccine.

"I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, necessarily. But there is no justification for unquestioning belief in the objectivity of science or certainty that somebody somewhere will have thoroughly looked into any areas of concern and come to a robust, trust-worthy conclusion that it's all fine"
Well, there is peer review. Which is more than can be said for alternative medicine.........

Ultimately this reminds me of financial investments; in the final analysis it is an emotional decision. What you go with is down to your attitude to risk and your personality in general. We know that many children come through childhood ailments unscathed and some children are severely damaged by vaccines. That's enough for some people - it feels right to them to let nature take its course because they cannot countenance making an active decision that could possibly be the cause of their healthy child becoming disabled in a sudden and rather horrifying way.

You may disagree with the logic but you can't knock their right to do it or suggest that they should be able to do this for the sake of everyone else's children. It just doesn't work that way and it never will.

It's rather more to the point how you decide.

When there are thousands of cases of reported but unrecorded adverse events, many of them very similar, many coming before any other incidents were widely reported, and when there is no other explanation, it's my view (and Occam's Razor would suggest) that some of them are true.

But you have to believe that they are all of them untrue. How have you decided that?

Bertrand: Andrew Wakefield's paper was peer-reviewed.