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?

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

Why do I have to believe that?

I'm no proponent of alternative medicine, Bertrand. Yes, I realise there is peer review but it's not necessarily challenging the big assumptions. How well did peer review work in research into the effects of tobacco back in the day.

In order to decide there's nothing it it, bertrand, you would have to dismiss a plethora of different accounts. While on their own they may be anecdotal and easy to dismiss, if the numbers mount up and show a trend, that's more significant. If you're denying any trend, you would have to be dismissing the vast majority of the reports.

Because you believe the official adverse events statistics and the risk/benefit ratio derived from them.

Am I wrong to assume that?

If you don't believe the official adverse events statistics and the risk/benefit ratio derived from them, why are you so decided about the risks and benefits of vaccines?

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

Statistics from Public Health England demonstrate that, between 1940 and 1968 when the measles vaccine was introduced, between 200,00 and 750,000 people per year caught measles. In 1967, the figure was 460,407, with 99 deaths. Once vaccination was established, figures fell to 10,000 cases a year by 1990. Figures continued to fall thereafter but rose in the 2000s when there was a drop in the number of children receiving MMR.

Two children in the UK have died of measles since 2006; neither had been given MMR. In the first six months of 2013 there were 1,287 cases of measles. 257 of these were admitted to hospital, including 39 with serious complications such as pneumonia, meningitis and gastroenteritis.
During the measles outbreak in Wales in 2013, a young man died of measles complications. During 2013, 10,271 cases of measles were reported in the EU. 8 people developed measles encephalitis (infection of the brain), and 3 died. Statistics relating to mumps and rubella show similar benefits.

On the other hand, statistics about the risk from the MMR jab are hard to find: the only risk that anyone seems to have been seriously concerned about was autism, and the correlation there has been largely discredited. In a five year period, only 12 claims to the DfH for vaccine damage connected to MMR were successful.

Gonetosee: They must all be dismissed by the true pro-vaccine enthusiasts. If you acknowledge case A, then why not similar case B, or C. Why not? The number is unknown, therefore the risk is unknown.

Their children! Their choice! Get over it!

Winchester - for you to compare a vaccine to chemotherapy 'sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't' is extremely offensive to people desperate to save their children's lives.

It is central to your case that your refuse to acknowledge unrecorded adverse events

When did I mention that? Yes, I think the answer is that I didn't.

Lady: We're just having a conversation about statistics. You dismiss out of hand that there are any unrecorded vaccine adverse events. Why? There's no point in producing statistics unless you can demonstrate why they can be trusted.

You don't refuse to acknowledge unrecorded adverse vaccine events?

So why do you trust adverse event statistics?

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

And 4 out of the 6 reviewers rejected it. In normal circumstances, the paper wouldn"t have seen the light of day. But the editor of the Lancet made a crap decision.

Hi Bertrand: so it was peer reviewed.

So do you or don't you acknowledge unrecorded adverse events, and do you or don't you trust adverse event statistics?

mumto I'm not sure why you think so. Sadly, this is true for chemotherapy; I don't think it was intended to be flippant.

Winchester, if you can't accept that knowledge from developing vaccine A informs the development of vaccine B, not least because they are based on the same principles, your mind is closed to logic and evidence. It's a linear development. That's the way science works.

I'm not in a position to say there are no unreported adverse events. How could I be?

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.

Up to a point. It depends on the safeguards, including reliable peer review - and the Wakefield case illustrates that peer review can be pretty reliable. But the point is that those studies have not been doubted by reputable independent scientists, and there do not appear to be any independent studies that go the other way.

"Hi Bertrand: so it was peer reviewed"

Yes. And 4 of the 6 reviewers rejected it.

Bertrand: There are reported adverse events that are unrecorded. If you acknowledge that some of these are genuine then you acknowledge that the official adverse event statistics are unreliable and that the risk/benefit ratio that they posit is flawed.

If you don't know if there are any unrecorded adverse events, why do you trust the official statistics?

Faith? The appeal to authority?

France has got it right. I couldn't put the kids in nursery there, even for a day, without a fully up to date Red Book with all the vaccine history. If you want your kids to benefit from mass-provided education, you have to take responsibility for protecting them and all the other kids there from preventable diseases. Otherwise, take responsibility for educating them yourself. End of.

This is about the safety of vaccines, not the safety of a principle.

Do you think we are talking in abstract terms? I think we are talking about children's lives and children's health. Therefore we are talking about the dangers of disease and the dangers of vaccines. Of vaccine products. Of specific vaccine products.

That's what I'm interested in. I thought you were too.

Not read the full thread however, there is one point worth making for non-vaccinators which is that anything which has a therapeutic will always have the potential for side effects and toxicity because that is the way medicine works. The only things that won't have side effects are things that won't help you at all. This is first year degree stuff and isn't rocket science. Look up the definition of an LD50 / therapeutic dose. The other important thing is balancing risk - so you might have a child that has a rare adverse reaction but what about the consequence of having mumps - potentially a life time of disability. I knew people who had it growing up and they would all have taken the vaccine.

So it was peer-reviewed you brought it up as a sort of failsafe in contrast to alternative medicine

'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. I mean, fine if you want to admit it's flaws. I don't care. It was you suggesting it could offer 'certainty that somebody somewhere will have thoroughly looked into any areas of concern and come to a robust, trust-worthy conclusion'.

Ok - it isn't. Whatever. You're arguing against yourself.

With you all the way MeandT. A few years ago there was an outbreak of mumps in my area. I was scared because my kids were too small at the time to have vaccine. It made me angry that people could be so headstrong.

Gonetosee - just making the point that you can't compare a vaccine to chemotherapy. Nothing to do with each other. Having spent the last 3 years trying to save my son's life, I'd try anything that might help. And I do find it selfish that my son might catch a preventable disease and die, while going through hell with cancer, just because some people don't want to vaccinate based on some flimsy evidence. I also felt that way before he got ill