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.

It’s pointless getting into a debate with someone (who’s already extremely resistant to the notion of not vaccinating) about a related subject they’ve not even come across... understandable as even the most open minded of us are generally resistant to new concepts at first

But here’s some more links for everyone to get their knickers in a twist about. Fascinating if you have the stomach for your long standing beliefs to be ruffled
www.whale.to/a/lanka_h.html

No, not just you Cath - sorry but you're the only one I've seen who is stating these anecdotes in a tone of "...so it can't be true, can it?"

Most other people have shared anecdotes in order to illustrate why they find a disease to be frightening or serious, which is subjective hence why anecdotes are appropriate.

@Cathmidston

But you weren't just providing your anecdote.

You were saying that my children had vaccinations and suffered with febrile convulsions whilst your child has not had vaccinations and has not suffered from febrile convulsions.

You were deliberately trying to prove cause and effect.

By the way, having dealt with my children and my niece and nephew during the fits I would absolutely say they are something to be feared. My son stopped breathing during why and I had to resuscitate him. My niece had repeated fits, one after the other, and had to be sedated.

Given what I witnessed, and what my parents witnessed, we have often wondered if febrile convulsions are in anyway linked to SIDS, especially that the child is often reported to have had a seemingly mild infection in the days leading up to it.

Luckily, the children in our family were always witnessed fitting but I could easily imagine a child fitting during their sleep and simply not recovering. In which case, febrile convulsions are something to be afraid of.

Cath, this website has fallen at the first hurdle when it says that the German Supreme Court has ruled that not a single scientific study can confirm that measles exists.

What the ruling actually said was that Lanka was free to set the terms of the bet, as the originator of the bet.

So on this basis, can you agree that the website you posted has deliberately misrepresented Stefan Lanka's work?

Well it links to articles BY Lanka... so unless he’s misrepresenting himself

Oh my word. I have just read that article and then looked for the ruling.

How anyone can actually believe the opinion of someone who so blatantly twists the truth is beyond me.

"Lanka is now telling his followers that this outcome means that there is no prove of the existence of measles and that it is now established that there is no legal ground for the vaccination programmes worldwide. Podbielsky has harshly criticized this interpretation of the court rulings and stated that Lanka has only won because of semantic and legal subtleties. None of the six articles alone are enough to prove that measles exist, but together they prove this beyond any reasonable doubt."

Cath, please answer this question specifically.

Do you agree that this is a lie:

By prophylactic vaccination of adults and especially children against measles, the pharmaceutical industry has earned Billions over a 40-year period. The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though. Furthermore: There is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove the existence of such virus so far.

@arthurits see it how you want....
you have consistently insinuated that I’m putting my own child and everyone else and their dog at risk..
I simply stated that your children (who you’ve now said actually had life threatening convulsions) were vaccinated and mine who wasn’t didn’t...

I was pointing out a positive observation (from my POV) .... as one does when one is relentlessly attacked for their choices

As far as Lanka is concerned they failed hands down to prove the existence of an isolated virus. The mainstream has a different take on it...which obviously they would. You can slur findings either way to suit your agenda

For the avoidance of doubt, Cath, I'm referring to the boldface section, not the italics.

I do look forward to your answer.

Professor Podbielsky was the independent expert appointed by the court to review the evidence submitted by Lanka's opponent.

Podbielsky stated that the evidence proved beyond doubt that measles does exist and therefore that Lanka had lost the bet and had to pay up.

A higher court ruled that Lanka could decide himself whether the evidence was suitable or not ie the court ruled simply on the terms of the bet and not on the validity of the evidence. That had already been ruled upon.

For Lanka to now be saying that the courts have ruled that measles is not a virus is just blatantly untrue. Were he to be stating that he hasn't lost the bet would be factually correct. But to say this proves that his theory is true is simply outrageous and I'm sorry but anyone that cannot see this has lost all credibility.

If you are genuinely questioning widely held opinion you at the very least have to have good critical thinking skills. Review research on all sides and then form your own opinion - excellent. Review complete and utter made up tripe - well, just no words.

To be fair cathmidston I was on this thread two days ago and I come back and find you still here. If you're feeling attacked I wonder why you're so compelled to stay?

Roadto. Not quite sure what you refer to me for about Stefan Lanka. I said I have read of him like most would have like me.
So not quite sure why you say the link is for me

@spiritedlondon I never normally engage at all with this debate.. but I’m so sick of the self righteous venom spewed at anyone choosing to either question vaccines or avoid them... and I know I’m not alone. So yes I’m still here...

Because sue by trying to stay neutral you have been lumped in with all the other ‘nutters’

SharpLily

Er, mankind survived by having huge numbers of children to replace the many who died.

Yes, due to plagues, cholera, malaria, various flu pandemics, smallpox and more recently AIDS.....not "childhood diseases".

OK, so Cath, please tell me what you think of how Lanka characterised the German Supreme Court's ruling on his bet?

Was it a final ruling that measles does not exist, as he said on Whale, which is the website you have relied upon for your information?

Roadto. Not quite sure what you refer to me for about Stefan Lanka. I said I have read of him like most would have like me.
So not quite sure why you say the link is for me

Cath, you are obviously sockpuppeting with Sue because I never referred her to the link.

Please give up already.

For anyone interested in reading about the history of the smallpox vaccine:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069029/
Note the paragraph on vaccination of the general public. Too anyone who says they vaccinate for the benefit of the community, would you even consider having this one given the potential for colateral harm? And if the government were to mandate it how would you feel knowing the potential risks to your family? This is how most non-vaxxers feel about vaccinations in general. The risks of more common vaccines may be smaller in the general population but the principle is the same.

@roadtorivendell this is from your post at 0944 as you seem to be struggling with your memory:

Here's another Stefan Lanka link for Sue and Cath.

Still not answering my question?

Also, Andrew Wakefield was ridiculed and struck off for a study based on its small sample size of 12, uncontrolled design and speculative nature of its conclusions.

Similarly:
Dr. Edward Jenner of Gloucestershire, England noticed that milkmaids exposed to cowpox appeared to be immune to smallpox. He tested his hypothesis by inoculating a boy with cowpox pus and subsequently challenging him with smallpox. The experiment was a success, and Jenner prepared a paper describing this case along with 13 other individuals who had contracted either horsepox or cowpox before being exposed to smallpox. In one of the worst editorial decisions of all time, the Royal Society rejected the paper and suggested that Jenner cease his cowpox investigations.

Yet Jenner's discovery eventually led to the eradication of smallpox.

Quibbled

I do understand your perspective, though I disagree with it and think there is limited evidence for it in the age of modern vaccines. But the concern that the government pushes a pro vaccine agenda when it might not always be best on an individual basis at least is a logical position. The government has a motive for ignoring the "damage" caused by vaccines (though to be clear I believe in the credible research done as to the safety of vaccines now).

I don't understand what Cath thinks the purpose of governments and health organisations across the globe is, if vaccines are both dangerous and ineffective at preventing disease. And if those diseases aren't actually dangerous anyway. In that case, governments undertake an expensive vaccine exercise that damages the health of a small percentage of the population at random, and there is absolutely no benefit to it doing so. What would be the purpose?

I note that this question has been asked a number of times and each time she has refused to answer it.

Sadly Cath you have not blown my mind yet, but I do very much pity you.

No, Wakefield was struck off for this:

"A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part,[10] and most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations.[11] The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues.[12] The investigation centred on Deer's numerous findings, including that children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures,[13] and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children.[14]"