SIL has not vaccinated my nieces

[Pittcuecothecookbook]

My baby has been booked in for her vaccinations soon. I asked my sister in law, who has primary school aged kids, about the experience and I was flabbergasted when she said she didn't get their jabs. I can't quite believe it!

When I asked why, she said the risks outweighed the pros but she struggled to articulate what the risks were beyond 'potential death'. I said that that was also the downside of not getting the jabs too! She said she was persuaded when her friend said that the jabs couldn't be undone if her kids had a reaction.

AIBU to be shocked and quite disappointed about this? I'm not looking forward to it by any means, but the eradication of many awful diseases and protection against those still prevalent is surely a non negotiable?

When her kids don't get these diseases, she'll be vindicated but that will likely be because the majority have had their jabs rather than proving jabs were unnecessary.

I imagine I'll get over this - my child will be protected - but I'm just at hearing this news.

So perhaps someone would care to explain Measles to me then. The Website Travel Health Pro ( which is linked to Public Health England) is reporting an increase in Measles in Mainland Europe.

travelhealthpro.org.uk/news/308/measles-in-europe-reminder

In fact the figures reported for Europe for 2017 of 14,600 cases has already been outstripped this year alone by Ukraine who have had 27,502 cases - 11,142 adults and 16,360 children. The website claims this is due to the number of vaccinated people being “sub optimal “ If measles is a “ developmental disease” and “ learning experience for the body” as asserted by @cath above why would you have outbreaks in such large numbers in the same location? Wouldn’t the “learning” happen broadly speaking in a more scattered way across the continent? And in consistent numbers year on year?
Perhaps there is a munsnetter ( Ukranian or otherwise ) who can clarify what the issue is ( as the documents linked by the website are not in English naturally)

As an aside this is a really useful website if you’re travelling abroad and are seeking travel information - original source material is linked if that’s your bag.

Blaa blaa ,what you miss is that it’s the governments stance to vaccinate everybody so any reports by official bodies with any part government funding are as bias as no way can we suggest anything against the governments policies.

I feel it is a serious problem that once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, it becomes an almost sacred thing, beyond question or discussion.

Australia vaccinates infants within hours of birth against Hepatitis B. Unless the mother is infected, this is, to me, an indefensible practice. The vast majority of babies will never be exposed to Hep B, unless they grow up to become IV drug users, sex workers or inmates of the male estate (i.e. exposed to needle sharing and unsafe sexual practices.) There was an interesting article in the New York Times about why this vaccine was added to the infant schedule some decades ago - it was due to the lack of compliance in at-risk adults in getting themselves this newly developed vaccine. Solution: vaccinate every single baby born in the country at birth, so if they grow up to be at-risk adults, they've already been vaccinated.

I understand the passion for say, Hib, and meningitis vaccines- you know, illnesses that actually kill babies and children. But injecting a 12 hour old infant with a necessarily powerful immune stimulant unless it's really, really necessary? No, no I don't get it at all.

If you try to discuss this in Oz, you're called an anti-vaxxer, inevitably followed by a comment about 'people like you' risking a return of polio and children forced to live their lives trapped inside 1940s medical technology.

It's both tedious and frightening.

I think Bertie's earlier point is a good one. Lots of parents distrust health care professionals for whatever reason and this pushes them into the arms of anti vaxxers.

I am strongly pro NHS, knowing many people who work in the NHS and having experienced devoted care from HCPs many times. But the NHS website on vaccines does come across as protesting too much, and it seems to be trying to persuade. That will make parents with concerns even more suspicious.

In contrast, the university of Oxford page I linked to a couple of pages back has unbiased evidence and information. It does not present that information with an agenda other than to inform, as far as I see it, and it addresses concerns of parents openly. I do highly recommend it to any parents who are sceptical of vaccines and have read things about vaccines (like the ingredients in them or potential side effects) which they find alarming.

Unfortunately, modern society is gripped by a proliferation on the internet of completely misleading information on many subjects. People don't know where to turn. Add the human propensity for confirmation bias into the mix and you have a real problem on your hands for dissemination of accurate, unbiased information. I think it will only get worse, and the vaccination debate is only one example. Recent political campaigns have shown an almost complete disregard for accuracy and honesty on most sides of the political debate. It's a sad state of affairs, and there seem to be no consequences for politicians who cynically lie or misrepresent facts to persuade.

As to the question of whether MN should allow posts which present dubious opinion or even plain inaccurate facts as true. In my view it is better that people are allowed to debate these views vigorously. We are unlikely to change the minds of those who have already taken an anti vaccine stance, but there might be others out there reading who haven't decided yet. Suppressing anti vaccine "information" is likely to be viewed as an attempt to suppress the truth to someone who is already sceptical.

Well for one thing measels is a virus so no antibiotics have any effect on it.
It effects millions across the world every year and is passed by coughing sneezing and contact with the infected person.

MairyHole. Glad you found my link of some use

@sue sorry your post is difficult to understand but what I think you're saying is that there is an element of bias in everything we read?
Well, yes of course but at least when you're reading information from the government it's clear who wrote it and for what purpose. The same cannot be said for all information relating to vaccinations.

Of course the government want as many people vaccinated as possible...why wouldn't they? Why is that a bad thing? It protects those that can't be vaccinated.

And before you say I'm brainwashed by the government. I got my information on vaccinations from a professor of immunology...her advice was unless there is an underlying medical issue then vaccinating is the safest thing to do.

Cross post with gingerpusscat, who I think makes a similar point. Medical professionals are not Gods, and so we should be able to question recommendations made to us, particularly where there is a variance in recommendation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (e.g. I am still not convinced by the lack of nationwide chickenpox vaccine in the UK). The problem is that people who question are often turning to inaccurate and heavily biased sources of information. As with any conspiracy theory, it makes the believer feel powerful to be one of the few people who knows "the truth", and this can make the belief almost unshakeable.

Suewiang, if it was you who posted then I must thank you, it is a great source of information.

You miss what I say,if we post something not along the same lines that the government approve of and want in the public eye then funding is stopped and then funding goes to another research.
So we can only give a report to a point. And that’s one that fits in with what the government require.
So there’s as much bias in any governent backed information as any outside information is the point I’m making.

But Sue there are significant sources of non government vaccine funding, so I'm afraid that is just a conspiracy theory. Money was poured in to research when the autism scare occurred. No study could ever replicate the results Wakefield found, and his position unravelled from there.

@sue I'm sorry, I really don't understand the point you are making.

Anyway, I'm not talking about what the government say. I'm talking about people who study immunology...that information is as free of bias as any information can be

We have both fundings private and government and All I can say Is how it is for us and the others I know.

And it’s not conspiracy theory it’s fact

whatever makes you happy

This is a perfect example of the unshakeable conspiracy theory. Research into vaccinations from credible sources cannot be trusted because it is generally positive. Ergo there must be negative research that is not published. Any attempt to persuade then becomes a shout into the void because all positive information (even that which acknowledges potential negatives) is believed unreliable.

@sue what are you talking about? You aren't making any sense.

Am I happy that based on the information presented to me by a professor in immunology, I vaccinated my son....hell yes!

Does it make me angry that people are refusing to vaccinate their children because of incorrect, misinterpreted information and yes I'll say it, conspiracy theories - yes it does! That irresponsible decision is putting their children and other members of society at risk.

i Have worked in this area all my life I moved to England because of a job offer so my English is not perfect unfortunately. So I’m sorry I’m not always as clear as I should be.

@sue if you've worked in this area all your life can you explain what is it you do that makes you authoritative on this subject?

I’m a bio chemist, why? What do you do that makes you an expert ?

I feel you are unfortunately getting some Brexit/gammonist backlash here Sue. I am reading your comments with interest.

What on earth has Brexit got to do with vaccinations?

If you've got a baby, then keep her children away.

Someone made a horrible analogy about The decision to not vaccinate was as logical as voting to leave - something along those lines. We don’t need to go there it just details the debate.

I am not for or against vaccinations I work in that field all my life I see good and bad reasons to do so and I feel it’s a parents choice and later the child’s choice to be vaccinated or not.
Forcing people to do anything creates a terrible situation and has no common sense in any way.
I was born in a country that forced lots upon its society in many ways and all it created was a massive 2 tier system the rich doing as they wanted and the poor doing as told with nothing in between.
One thing that has not been mentioned is the more we vaccinate as prevention the more chances of other diseases gaining strength.
We already have to combat variants yearly of the flu virus meaning this years vaccine is not the same as last years and so on.
We already see antibiotics having little and no effect in many many cases from over use.
We see that rats and other rodents are often immune to poisons.
Which in term is the same for vaccinations the more we vaccinate against the world the bigger the problem we create.
Most people buy cleaned and sterilised food they think veg comes in little bags and so on. Our bodies need daily dirt to put it simply we need it to be naturally immune to many things.
Cleanliness is great but over cleanliness is not unless it’s needed in certain circumstances like surgery etc and of course those vulnerable.