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

SIL has not vaccinated my nieces

999 replies

Pittcuecothecookbook · 12/08/2018 19:49

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 Shock at hearing this news.

OP posts:
Suewiang · 15/08/2018 12:41

Cath your so right

fieryginger · 15/08/2018 12:45

My DS is 18 and profoundly autistic, if I had a time machine, I would 100% not vaccinate him.

I have video of him being completely "normal" at 12 months, heck he could do and say more then than at 18 years old.

He has no life. He's still in nappies, has never known what a birthday or Christmas is, will never have a relationship or children, will never be able to walk into a shop and buy a loaf of bread, is completely non verbal, self harms to the point of breaking several windows, pushing out mortar on the outside of the window with the force of his head banging, but the worse part is is extreme anxiety. My poor boy suffers every single day. I'd take the chance with measles over what is going on with him now, any day of the week. He needs 2/1 care 24 hours a day. He is miserable and scared. So no, I would not vaccinate him again and he did not have his booster.

THIS severe autism is hidden from most. You have people say, "oh my next door neighbours nephew has autism", but it's not Autism like this. He's as autistic as you can be.

Also the "what if he dies from a disease, wouldn't you feel guilty", I have lost a 5 year old to cancer, I know the pain of losing a child and I STILL wouldn't vaccinate my son.

I don't give a flying fig about your opinions on this subject. You have NO idea.

MairyHole · 15/08/2018 12:45

Cath, that is a misrepresentation of at least my posts where I talk about the need for a source of unbiased and complete information. Your problem (and Sue's) appears to be a complete distrust of any source of information that discusses benefits of vaccines and a complete acceptance of theories that they are not just harmful but deliberately or recklessly so, such as vaccines causing autism and this link for some reason being covered up. In which case, debating the merits of vaccination will be fruitless.

For what it's worth, I do believe that the vaccination programme is essentially an altruistic endeavour. I don't believe that every major government would seek to undertake a very expensive national programme unless it was thought to be of benefit to the health of the general population. Might there be side effects for some, for whom vaccination is not then the best course of action? Of course. But once you start disbelieving the motivations of healthcare professionals it is going to be impossible for anyone to convince you that vaccines do more good than bad for most people.

Suewiang · 15/08/2018 12:46

Mairy. You have said nothing of any benefit to any of the discussion bar keep saying you are right and everyone else is wrong that disagrees with you.
You have argued nothing of any relevance and have said nothing of any benefit to the discussion.
I provided one of the very few neutral links to information online and it is down to people to decide themselves what part about that do you not understand.

Suewiang · 15/08/2018 12:49

Lol how can I be against the information and link I provided when I am a part of it lol you make me laugh so much.

MairyHole · 15/08/2018 12:51

I'm afraid you're just trying to shut me up now, but it won't work. I've never said in my posts that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and I have tried to keep a respectful tone while you have been really quite rude to me and to others. I'll leave others to decide which of the two of us has added something of merit to the discussion.

Suewiang · 15/08/2018 12:51

So right fiery, not all experiences are good as I have tried to point out

piscis · 15/08/2018 12:52

I am pro vaccines but I also think it is not your place to tell them what to do. Maybe talk to your brother to see what he thinks, but if I were your SIL I wouldn't take it well if you tried to tell me what to do with my kids (even if you are right).

If both parents are anti vaxx there is nothing that can be done, if the health authorities/goverment don't make it mandatory, the rest of the family shouldn't interfere in my opinion.

I think that when one parent is pro and the other anti vaxx, then the kids should have the vaccinations, as all the scientific evidence is on that side.

Original poster
Pittcuecothecookbook · 15/08/2018 13:27

the debate is that the lady thinks she can tell her sister in law what to do and think it’s that simple.
And the simple answer is she has no right to do so

I've not said I'll tell my SiL what to do...? My OP was AIBU to be shocked that her kids haven't had them, then, based on responses here that my baby wouldn't be protected, we had a conversation about vaccinations and her motives. I've not dictated that she needs to get her own children vaccinated, but given she's not got any real argument against it, I'm still surprised she's not protected them.

OP posts:
Cathmidston · 15/08/2018 13:28

Fieryginger I’m so sorry

Mairy and by the same token you have an fundamental and pathological distrust of any research paper which questions either safety or vaccine effacy... in fact as far as you’re concerned they’re not even research papers, they’re conspiratorial nonsense .... so I feel it’s also impossible to have an intelligent debate with you

sue, who has simply tried to stay neutral and just point out the facts of the sources and promoting of various research funding has also been derided

MairyHole · 15/08/2018 13:54

Questions were raised by a PP about those supposed research papers. Why didn't you answer them?

MairyHole · 15/08/2018 13:55

I don't think Sue has stayed particularly neutral. She has in fact been unpleasant to me without retaliation and has repeatedly ignored my points, instead preferring simply to say that parents should choose.

MairyHole · 15/08/2018 13:57

Also, those research papers were about mercury. I pointed out that this is no longer a vaccine ingredient. You then told me that aluminium was also a problem. I then provided a link discussing why aluminium is thought to have been safe. So I have engaged the evidence you have presented far more than you have engaged with mine, I'm afraid.

Cathmidston · 15/08/2018 14:03

Those 151 research papers didn’t just cover mercury, they also covered aluminium and various other factors...as I replied... if you’d bothered to look. They are different papers from different scientists that were simply collated within the one link.
Just because your single paper suggests that oral aluminium ingestion isn’t an issue, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a problem when injected as a salt. It’s injected to provoke the immune system. It provokes it because by its very nature it’s a toxin. Also?.. There’s also countless studies citing oral ingestion of aluminium being linked to dementia....

MairyHole · 15/08/2018 14:05

Did you read the link I provided regarding aluminium? It was not a single paper at all.

Coyoacan · 15/08/2018 14:14

I find it odd that people claim that any anti-vaxx research paper must obviously be biased while assuming that research papers published by pharmaceutical companies are clearly unbiased and trustworthy.

Anti-vaxx advocates may all be nutters as alleged here, but does that compare to the huge financial interests of pharmaceutical companies, who time and time again have been found against in courts for suppressing relevant adverse information?

Pharmaceutical companies have been protected from litigation for vaccine damage since 1987, with governments around the world assuming the pay-outs. Which makes me a wee bit suspicious of any vaccines that have been developed after that date.

Cathmidston · 15/08/2018 14:23

And there’s much contradictory research that suggests neither oral or injectable aluminium are safe.
But if you’re happy injecting aluminium into your children, then fill your boots, personally, I’d rather not

MairyHole · 15/08/2018 14:51

Please could you link to that specific research? From credible sources, because like it or not, some sources aren't credible.

See here for some specific comments on that previous link you provided, study by study:

lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/08/-those-lists-of-papers-that-claim-vaccines-cause-autism-part-1.html

The reason the studies such as those previously linked to are viewed with scepticism is because they are funded by people convinced that vaccines are dangerous. Those doing unbiased research don't have an agenda. They research and conclude, rather than conclude and research. They aren't funded by pharma.

www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Studies-Examine-the-Evidence.aspx

Just because an ingredient sounds alarming, doesn't mean it is, particularly in the very small quantities present in vaccines. E.g. formaldehyde is a harmful substance present in vaccines, but also present in our blood. A small amount of something that can be very bad for you doesn't mean that in small quantities it is bad for you, if you see what I mean.

Why do you distrust the mainstream medical research?

piscis · 15/08/2018 15:14

And there’s much contradictory research that suggests neither oral or injectable aluminium are safe. But if you’re happy injecting aluminium into your children, then fill your boots, personally, I’d rather not

A lot of the food we eat contain metals because of their presence in the environment, you had a son so you have been pregnant and know that tuna has mercury, marlin and swordfish even more, rice has arsenic, seafood has cadmium, oily fish in general has pollutants...the human body can get rid of these contaminants as long as it is not in big amounts. The amount of metals in food is higher than vaccines, not to mention that we eat every day several times a day, whist vaccines are given once in a blue moon. It is not perfect, it would be better if everything was pure with no contaminants at all, but if you are giving your son foods like this then it is absurd not to vaccinate him, your son is exposed to metals and contaminants anyway I'm afraid. At least with the vaccine you are protecting him from a disease, he can live without eating rice though, but I am sure like every child, he happily eats rice anyway.

Labmum · 15/08/2018 15:49

@Pittcuecothecookbook spo what has been the outcome with your SIL. I don't think you are unreasonable for being shocked. I also don't think you are unreasonable to refuse to allow your baby to be around them until she is fully vaccinated against MMR at 12 months. Its ironic she says she doesn't agree in herd immunity yet relies on it to protect her own children Hmm.

Also be aware that if you want another child you should avoid them whilst you are pregnant, your immune system will be lowered in pregnancy and you and your unborn baby will be at risk from them.

Your SIL is welcome to make her choice but you are also able to make yours on behalf of your child.

I actually have wondered for while if in a few years time, given the blame culture we live in, we see a wave of children suing their own parents for not vaccinating them and them then contracting measles/mumps etc. Perhaps men suing their parents for them catching mumps and being unable to then have children.......

ImAIdoot · 15/08/2018 16:37

Alot of the food we eat contain metals because of their presence in the environment, you had a son so you have been pregnant and know that tuna has mercury, marlin and swordfish even more, rice has arsenic, seafood has cadmium, oily fish in general has pollutants...the human body can get rid of these contaminants as long as it is not in big amounts. The amount of metals in food is higher than vaccines, not to mention that we eat every day several times a day, whist vaccines are given once in a blue moon. It is not perfect, it would be better if everything was pure with no contaminants at all, but if you are giving your son foods like this then it is absurd not to vaccinate him, your son is exposed to metals and contaminants anyway I'm afraid. At least with the vaccine you are protecting him from a disease, he can live without eating rice though, but I am sure like every child, he happily eats rice anyway.

FYI toxicity by ingestion vs intravenously administered substances can be very different - to the extent that someone can be confident in asserting how dangerous a substance is if injected, but have to consult on its effects if administered orally (and vice versa).

Quibbled · 15/08/2018 16:40

Labmum
Perhaps men suing their parents for them catching mumps and being unable to then have children...

And who will the vaccine damaged children sue? If vaccinations become mandatory they won't be able to sue their parents...and they won't be able to sue the manufacturers as they are exempt from responsibility....and that leaves the good old government...which is one reason I suspect they won't make vaccines mandatory in the first place.

piscis · 15/08/2018 16:42

FYI toxicity by ingestion vs intravenously administered substances can be very different

Vaccines are not administered intravenously

Cathmidston · 15/08/2018 16:46

Quibbled I was thinking the same.... 3.7 billion in compensation in the US so far

ImAIdoot · 15/08/2018 16:52

Vaccines are not administered intravenously

Yes bad choice of words as I have typed that word about 150 times today, however my comment was in response to your comparison ingested toxins to injected ones, and the point stands.

Swipe left for the next trending thread