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?

vaccines will become even more important as antibiotics are being restricted (rightly so) to the really bad cases of bacerial infection.

Sorry, missed this from bumbleymummy

I didn't discount it. I think you may need to re read the posts from last night in the context they were intended

OK, I went back to your post of 22:00:36 last night. Of the four studies cited which showed the benefit of vaccines, you dismissed two as "conflicts of interest" and two as from "developing countries." Did I miss something?

In any case I gave links to additional studies, which included two from Germany, one Canadian, one Argentinian, one UK, one Australian - all first world, all showing the benefits of vaccines.

Honest question: what sort of conditions are necessary for you to accept any scientific study which concludes vaccines are beneficial as factually accurate?

BreakWind - As I said earlier, I was replying to the person who originally posted the links who asked 'what's wrong with these?' As I have already said, it's unlikely that someone considered an 'anti-vaxxer' looking for a paper comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated children (in developed countries such as the UK) is going to accept papers whose authors have received funding from vaccine manufacturers.

I haven't had a chance to look at your other papers yet.

I'm not sure why you're asking me the last question. It's not something I've said.

I posted those studies as a reply to several people who clearly stated that there have been NO studies. They didn't say that there haven't been studies they consider acceptable according to their standards, or similar. No studies.

The anti-vax argument seems to be that modern medicine is so good, almost everyone can survive measles. Modern medicine is fantastic! Except the bits of modern medicine like vaccinations.

Which ignores the (a) preventative effect that vaccination and herd immunity has and (b) it's not just death you need to worry about, there's long term measles damage as well.

And, why would you want to endure measles if you didn't have to?

It's like the flu: most people can survive the flu with proper medical intervention. Still, doctors still find the prospect of a flu epidemic amongst the scariest scenarios because the infrastructure couldn't cope.

I believe the anti-vax argument is "None of my three children are allergic to peanuts, therefore peanut allergy is no longer a thing and its my choice to send all my children to school smeared in peanut butter. Even if someone has a reaction, there are epi-pens available so whats the big deal?"

YANBU but it is unfair on those children to be potentially asked to leave a place they are happy due a parents decision.

It's also unfair to ask the child with cancer to either skip school or risk death because someone else's mom bought into the woo.

I've not had time to RTFT, but if anyone has any concrete stats on children disabled by vaccines vs children disabled by measles for example, I'd be very interested to see those.

I have a friend who caught measles age 10, it was so bad she was in intensive care, and has suffered brain damage that means her mental capacity has never developed beyond that of a ten year old. Her parents died when she was in her early teens, and without them to guide her, she has been exploited, sexually and financially. It is devastating, she is so vulnerable.

I cannot understand anyone who doesn't vaccinate unless there is solid medical reasoning e.g. a history of family allergies to a particular vaccine.

I'm afraid concrete stats are not available. There aren't accurate numbers for vaccine damaged children.

So just to be clear, people on here want a vulnerable immunocompromised child to be surrounded by children who have just been vaxxed with a live virus MMR vaccine, that sheds for weeks afterwards? Eh?

Me is a weakened live virus so shedding is minimal. The polio and rotavirus vaccines do shed and would definitely be an issue.

I believe the anti-vax argument is "None of my three children are allergic to peanuts, therefore peanut allergy is no longer a thing and its my choice to send all my children to school smeared in peanut butter. Even if someone has a reaction, there are epi-pens available so whats the big deal?

Except that that is not at all a good example or representative of the situation.

But surely if a school genuinely has a child with a compromised immune system, it should encourage parents to keep any child who is slightly under the weather at home.

cancer research

^...there is no risk to you from any child who has had a pre-school booster. This applies to most childhood vaccines in the UK, including polio, MMR, diptheria, whooping cough, tetanus or BCG (for tuberculosis).
Read more at www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/immunisations-and-chemotherapy#YBbrbM5fuW2MQZ3x.99^

All live viral vaccines, including the MMR, can theoretically shed, and I think some MMR product sheets warn against contact with immunosuppressed individuals for this reason. The advice is strange from this point of view, unless there's an ongoing measles outbreak in the area which would make vaccination more urgent. I don't think there's much real world evidence of transmission of MMR viruses to vulnerable people (although I'm not sure how easy it would be to test that), so maybe in an outbreak the risk is considered worth it.

The child with cancer is probably more at risk from other children shedding the nasal flu spray than measles.

I'm afraid concrete stats are not available. There aren't accurate numbers for vaccine damaged children.

How about the DOH stats that between 1979 and 2014 there were 6,026 claims to the government under the vaccine damage scheme, with 931 awards made.

There 's another FOI (from 2010) which shows were only 34 vaccine damage awards made between 1999 and 2009.

Those are recorded vaccine injuries.

Sadik

Medical exemption, and that should be the only exemption.

As much as I am pro vaccinations I am also pro choice so if a parent doesn't want their child to have a vaccination, for whatever reason, then they should be left alone and not bullied into it.

The way parents are bullied in to educating their children? Bullied in to using car seats and restraints?

The way JW parents are bullied by the courts to force certain medical treatments they don't agree with on a poorly child.

Parents have choices but they also have responsibilities. This is why we as a society remove children from parents who don't feed and care for their children.

OK - so what are your numbers for the unofficial ones, and why are they unrecorded?

There are thousands who say their child was injured by vaccines but i don't know how many are genuine. No one does. Often - maybe usually - parents say the idea of vaccine damage is dismissed immediately by the first HCP they broach it with. For example, after Andrew Wakefield was brought down, some gastroenterologists did not want to work with parents of autistic children who wanted to discuss intestinal problems. I think the dismissive attitude seen here with regard to vaccine damage is common throughout the health profession. Many are dismissive because they are true believers, but others would naturally fear career limitation. But generally parents complain of a 'fobbing off' without serious investigation. So, I don't have any numbers. There's now a yellow card reporting system, but many parents are told immediately that it's nothing to do with the vaccine and will trust their doctor. Also the Yellow Card system isn't well publicised. In addition, after for example baby jabs, parents can be told that extreme crying and distress is just natural and to see it out. But there is a danger of encephalitis linked to the vaccine that could cause damage.

It's hard for parents. You often hear 'they just weren't the same' - but that's very difficult to take to a doctor. Parents are told they're not objective, over emotional, precious first born, looking for someone to blame, are they feeding right, are they lacking in some way. It's hard to press your case against a very dismissive doctor.

So I have no numbers, no.

Those are recorded vaccine injuries

Are you this skeptical of all government/quango information, and if so, how do you make decisions about health care in general? And what about issues like
-car safety
-nutrition
-schools
-energy efficiency of consumer appliances
etc etc etc

Take the case of Jackie Fletcher. Her son was very badly injured by a vaccine but it took 17 years or so to have it acknowledged and compensated. A different parent might have given up. And she only won the cases after she dropped the 'autism' part of the claim. I don't know how many cases there are like that.

Museum I made a good point. You can think about it or not, but I'm not going answer questions about car seats.

goldenhandshake I think there would be far less threads like this if such a thing existed, that wasn't funded by a pharmaceutical company or someone seen as 'woo' as everyone calls it. An impartial, unbiased accurate comparison of the two would be freaking awesome. unfortunately, such a thing doesn't exist which is a travesty imo.

Well the fact that it hasn't happened tells its own story