Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask you to help me argue with an anti-vaxxer on fb

854 replies

GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick · 11/02/2017 21:24

I know, I know. But it's Saturday night, DP is out and I am just home whilst our (fully vaccinated!) DD is asleep.

What do I say to someone who is convinced that we should all do our own research, that vaccines are only about big pharma making big bucks, and that the govt hushes up vaccine damage??

OP posts:
Devilishpyjamas · 15/02/2017 19:36

Where are you getting your figures from rapid. Last time I looked the rate of vaccination for measles (i.e. MMR and single measles) was above 95% (97 iirc). You have to ignore the headline MMR figures - they tell you nothing.

If I had low immunity I would personally be more concerned about flu etc than measles.

In my friend's son's case it wasn't even the viruses that make people ill that was a problem. It was the Ines that don't make us sick.

Pagwatch · 15/02/2017 19:36

To go back to the op.

If you don't have the wit or energy to conduct your own argument with some bloke on Facebook it might be better to just go and do something else instead.
I don't really understand 'can you help me argue with someone. I'm sure I'm right but I'm I capeable of articulating that without going to another website for help'

BorrowedHeart · 15/02/2017 19:39

^^ this, pagwatch

raindripsonruses · 15/02/2017 19:41

Herd immunity varies from area to area. That's how it works. Hcps explained that our area did not have herd immunity for measles 85%.
And I get the flu jab for flu. I live in fear of getting the norovirus again. It floored me last time. But measles would be a whole different level of shit ness for me.

Original poster
GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick · 15/02/2017 19:51

So you don't understand being a bit bored when you're home with a sleeping baby and you've had a glass of wine and you're browsing several sites, pagwatch? Well lucky you!

Devilish. That post was about pretty much every parent EXCEPT you. Surely that was obvious from the fact that I have said repeatedly that you and panda have acquired knowledge and expertise that the average parent doesn't?!? It was actually in response to a ludicrous suggestion that everyone is capable of reading all the papers and speaking to top people at the pharma companies.

So no, no apology for an assumption that every post is about you!!

OP posts:
WayfaringStranger · 15/02/2017 19:56

If over 95% of children are vaccinated then I don't see why the small percentage can't be knowledgeable, educated and informed and have valid reasons.

Pagwatch · 15/02/2017 19:57

I totally understand that but that's not what I said

Argue with him if it passed the time
Come here and talk about other stuff if that entertains
But his argument cannot be so indescribably daft that it's your moral obligation to refute it and, at exactly the same time, so challenging that you need help

If you just want to come on here and start a ruck about vaccines just do that. The 'he's just so stupid and I need to tell him but I'm just totally incapable of doing it without mumsnet' is just ...

The 'oh well good for you
Pagwatch' thing is a bit daft too.

Devilishpyjamas · 15/02/2017 19:58

Raindrip - nearly every paper gives you the MMR rate and uses that to estimate herd immunity. It's a nonsense as the vast majority who refuse MMR have singles instead. I have found one paper that looked at MMR AND singles and that was an entirely different picture. It also looked at them regionally. Measles coverage was highest (97% iirc for MMR and single measles), rubella was about 94% for MMR and single rubella and mumps was low (basically the. MMR rate as it's so hard to get a single mumps vaccinations).

bumbleymummy · 15/02/2017 20:03

raindrip, there is no firm evidence that bumps causes sterility.

bumbleymummy · 15/02/2017 20:03

Mumps*

mycatwantstokillme1 · 15/02/2017 20:03

If my memory serves me OP said she decided to vaccinate after speaking to a couple of friends who knew about vaccinations & immune systems. Hardly major research herself.

I'm just suprised some of you are still debating with her, she reminds me of Nellie from Little House on the Prairie!

Devilishpyjamas · 15/02/2017 20:04

If I can find the paper (it was open access and completed by dept of health bods) I will link here or pm it to you raindrips. I can't look now as I have to sign off and do some work. I actually think it would put your mind at rest re measles. (I am often to be found yelling at the tv when the measles vaccine coverage rate is given as the MMR rate).

Some of the latest outbreaks have been traced back to individuals with full vaccination so it may be that waning immunity is becoming an issue for measles (you expect that the longer the disease is out of circulation). It is of course highly contagious (& why I check my kids mouths for koplik's spots each time they've get very snotty or a nasty cough or sore eyes. I hAve no wish to pass measles onto anyone).

Original poster
GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick · 15/02/2017 20:17

Ah cat. You do not recall correctly, not at all. I saw a doctor, and a paediatrician and then I talked to one family friend who happens to have 30 years' experience in immunology.

Not surprising your cat wants to kill you, poor thing is probably sick of you!

OP posts:
Devilishpyjamas · 15/02/2017 20:23

Here table 2 discovery.ucl.ac.uk/14122/1/14122.pdf

I'd remembered the proportions incorrectly - but 94% for a measles containing vaccine of some sort (and mumps was higher than I remembered) - which I suspect is higher than you have bee given re the MMR rate and hopefully of some reassurance.

Lots of details to read through & clearly there are holes that can be picked - but good to see a paper looking at single vaccines as well and it will be more accurate than everything else that just ignores them!

mycatwantstokillme1 · 15/02/2017 20:27

OP sorry to disappoint you but I've heard that one before.

You're patronising everyone that has a different opinion to you, laughing at people who have said they've done their own research, and you're right I didn't recall you speaking to 3 people. How you can mock other posters research when you only spoke to 3 people before making your decision is incredible!

Wondering if you're this rude to people in real life or if you just save it for t'internet!

Original poster
GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick · 15/02/2017 20:35

but that's the whole point, cat. I trusted people who are qualified to do the research. Who else better to talk to than someone with a long and successful career in the field and an In-depth knowledge of my family history? (apart from some of the posters here, of course Hmm)

And no, I'm not patronising anyone who has a different opinion. Some of them I respect because I can see how and why they have it. Others I have told it bluntly how it is: they sound to be talking shite. if they don't like hearing it, well, they can and will ignore it.

OP posts:
mycatwantstokillme1 · 15/02/2017 20:40

OP I agree with a lot of what you say on this subject. But what you think of as bluntness comes across as very patronising and smug to me.

Original poster
GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick · 15/02/2017 20:47

well I am blunt (online, not so much offline, as you correctly surmised). I am most definitely not smug - I say openly that it's not my field and I have no knowledge, hence seeking trusted advice.

Patronising - it might read that way even if it was typed to be blunt!

OP posts:
Bettyspants · 15/02/2017 21:43

Well this thread has gone on a few more pages since I last commented ...as expected it's going round in circles with accusations and insults from both 'sides ' which is precisely why I stick to face to face discussions with parents who are interested...

BorrowedHeart · 15/02/2017 21:53

Whoa.. easy there op, you have been rude since you started this thread, no need to up your game we get that you're a bit of a twat, you don't need to prove this anymore than you already have.

Original poster
GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick · 15/02/2017 22:10

Borrowed, at least I'm only a bit of a twat. You're so much more than that :)

OP posts:
Lancelottie · 15/02/2017 22:14

GoesDown, could I gently suggest you put the wine down (as it's now Wednesday) and step away from the keyboard for a bit?

Original poster
GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick · 15/02/2017 22:16

But it would be such a shame to miss the next inevitable long rant about how wonderful borrowed thinks she is at everything.

OP posts:
EweAreHere · 15/02/2017 22:18

I have not read the thread, but saw this this evening. I thought it was interesting, since autism is one of the biggest anti-vaxxers' arguments:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38955872

:

WayfaringStranger · 15/02/2017 22:21

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have taken advice from people who are eminently qualified in this area and still decided not to vaccinate. I know I sought advice and chose not to go ahead with a particular vaccination (for myself). It's not black and white. It's easy to be pro-vaccination like I was and then you find yourself with a rare and complex disease which throws everything out the window. You start seeing the shades of gray.