Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
RoadToRivendell · 17/08/2018 12:08

I gather the judgement for Wakefield's size of 12 was ridiculed because of the enormous number of autistic children available for his study, whereas finding subjects resistant to an infectious disease is an entirely different kettle of fish.

You might recall that the two caregivers of an Ebola victim in the US (I think it was in Texas) were of great interest to researchers because of their exceptionality.

RoadToRivendell · 17/08/2018 12:09

^the two caregivers who did not contract Ebola, that is.

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 12:15
  1. So do you believe pharma is owned by the government and health organisations
  2. Why produce something dangerous instead of a placebo
MairyHole · 17/08/2018 12:25
  1. Millions of people must be involved in this to cover it up - lawyers, civil servants, judges, doctors, scientists, university academics, historians, journalists, charity workers. How do they keep it covered up when that many people know?
Quibbled · 17/08/2018 12:27

MairyHole
Sorry...I simplified the argument for sake of brevity!

Do you think trying to infect 13 children with smallpox is ethical? Or not abusive in any way? Surely he'd also have had to actually infect some along the way to prove his theory even to himself. Where did he get these kids?

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 12:29
  1. If the evidence underlying the study you previously linked to does not say what the study claims, and the judgment of the German court referred to above does not say what the Whale link claims (both easily verified by reading the underlying links), does that not make you at all suspicious you are being lied to?
greathat · 17/08/2018 12:31

@Cathmidston you do seem to be living in your own little bubble, which is fine, just don't try and convince other people you're right. My son would be DEAD if it weren't for effective asthma medication. Pretending the inhaler ( that he'd never had previously) caused the issue is the biggest pile of bollocks

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 12:31

Quibbled, I agree that I very much doubt anyone would do that experiment today. Medicine and ethics has moved on a lot since then.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 12:34

RoadToRivendell
Wakefield's sample were self selected by parents who allegedy approached him claiming that their children became ill post MMR. His study did not set out to prove a link between MMR and autism and did not purport to prove a link. He was investigating that specific group of children and their digestive issues. He suggested a link and suggested further investigation.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 12:39

MairyHole

Quibbled, I agree that I very much doubt anyone would do that experiment today. Medicine and ethics has moved on a lot since then.

Er...clearly not....

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/03/oxford-university-scientists-gave-babies-trial-tb-vaccine-did/amp/

Cathmidston · 17/08/2018 13:12

@Quibbled
Have you watched this? www.imdb.com/title/tt6391732/
Quite interesting

Cathmidston · 17/08/2018 13:20

@greathat and you clearly have trouble reading. I never said inhalers caused your son’s asthma. I said the use of inhalers have been linked to deaths FROM asthma ..in fact regular inhaler use has been found to be a leading cause of death in asthma sufferers. And then provided you with a link if you wanted to read more
news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/06/common-asthma-inhaler-causing-deaths-researchers-assert

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 13:21

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The vaccine in that trial had already been shown to be safe in other human experiments. The study was pulled up for not providing good enough information to the parents on efficacy. That's the kind of oversight present in modern medicine that had not developed when Jenner was working.

If there had been no safety trials done it would be a fairer comparison.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 13:23

No, Cathmidston, I haven't watched any documentaries on the subject. I worked in research for many years (before having kids) and studied policy analysis which involved a lot of critical analysis of medical studies.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 13:25

MairyHole, it was just an example of poor ethics for you. I was in no way comparing it to Jenner's experiments!

Cathmidston · 17/08/2018 13:26

@Quibbled ah I see. That sounds interesting

It’s a documentary about Wakefield and had the info you included earlier in it. Worth a watch if you have time

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 13:29

In fact MairyHole, many human child trials are conducted in the most impoverished African communities, encouraged by cash incentives. It's both morally and ethically questionable. Don't you think?

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 13:33

What you said was that ethics in medicine had "clearly not" moved on since Jenner's time - is that what you meant?

I don't disagree it's poor ethics at all. But I don't think it's a fair comparison to the ethics issues that existed in Jenner's time, which is how your previous post reads.

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 13:36

Yes if that's right I agree completely. Just like formula advertising in developing countries is highly unethical (doesn't mean formula itself is harmful).

Lobbying for better oversight and ethics in medicine is something most people would agree with.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 13:38

You are just being overly pedantic MairyHole. I know ethics have improved since Jenner's time. My point is that there are still questionable ethics.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 13:43

And those questionable ethics affect much larger numbers of people than back in Jenner's time, I am sure.

RoadToRivendell · 17/08/2018 13:58

If you could find a credible source that points towards systemic corruption and and falsification of vaccination efficacy, that would be interesting. Pointing out that there are unethical people in the industry is of no great interest to anyone with sound judgement, because they will have already built that assumption into their decision-making process.

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 13:59

Yes. And they ought to be held to account (on all sides of the debate) - as Wakefield was.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:11

I personally think he was made a scapegoat in order to pacify the masses of worried parents. I've seen so many people on MN using Wakefield being struck off as evidence of no link between MMR and autism. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Cite actual studies that tested specifically whether or not there is a link...but rubbishing a non-study doesn't prove anything. Satisfies the masses though, apparently.