Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
MairyHole · 17/08/2018 14:14

Lots of very big studies:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24814559/

None ever replicated the results of Wakefield's

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:17

None replicated which results?

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:18

His study didn't find a link.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:19

You haven't understood the point I was making at all.

RoadToRivendell · 17/08/2018 14:23

You haven't understood the point I was making at all.

I think the point you're making, correct me if I'm wrong, is 'who has proven that the link doesn't exist'.

All we can say is that no link has been established. If there were a lack of interest on the part of the medical establishment, you'd have a very good point - but there's not. This has been the subject of intense scrutiny.

No one has successfully established a link - which is the closest you'll get to proof that it doesn't exist.

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 14:23

I didn't properly check whether those were the studies I was thinking of by the way but it looks like a lot of studies relating to autism

The BMJ published this which discusses Wakefield evidence

www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 14:25

I am not a scientist by the way, so I don't pretend to be able to read scientific studies properly, but the studies have been done and no link between them was established. These were repeated and involved large numbers of people.

It's impossible to prove a negative so that's as good as we're ever likely to get

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 14:28

You asked this: "Cite actual studies that tested specifically whether or not there is a link"

This site provides impartial information and provides a list of credible studies

vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/mmr-vaccine

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 14:29

"Below is a list of studies and their findings. Click on the links to view the abstracts (summaries) of the scientific papers:

An analysis of studies involving over 1 million children has found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism development in children. It also found no evidence of a link between thiomersal and autism development (Taylor et al., 2014 ).
There is no increased incidence of autism in children vaccinated with MMR compared with unvaccinated children (Farrington et al., 2001 ; Madsen and Vestergaard, 2004 ).
There is no clustering of the onset of symptoms of autism in the period following MMR vaccination (Taylor et al., 1999 ; Mäkelä et al., 2002 ).
The increase in the reported incidence of autism preceded the use of MMR in the UK (Taylor et al., 1999 ).
The incidence of autism continued to rise after 1993 in Japan despite withdrawal of MMR (Honda et al., 2005 )
There is no correlation between the rate of autism and MMR vaccine coverage in either the UK (Kaye et al., 2001 ) or the USA (Dales et al., 2001 )
There is no difference between the proportion of children with a regressive form of autism (i.e. who appear to develop normally but then lose speech and social skills between around 15 and 30 months) who develop autism having had MMR compared with those who develop autism without vaccination (Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 ; Taylor et al., 2002 ).
There is no difference between the proportion of children developing autism having had MMR who have associated bowel symptoms compared with those who develop autism without vaccination (Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 ; Taylor et al., 2002 )
No vaccine virus can be detected in children with autism using the most sensitive methods available (Afzal et al., 2006 ; D’Souza et al., 2006 )."

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:42

No, I was speaking in general about public understanding etc, not asking you to provide me with links. My point is that a large subpopulation of MN users use the Wakefield study being rubbished as evidence that there is no link. Wakefield was used (as far as i can see) as a scapegoat to pacify these people and from the many pro-vaxx comments I've seen on MN the fact he was struck off is all the evidence they seem to need. My point is that it is not evidence of no link. I'm in no way saying that I think there is a link by the way, but it makes me laugh when people claim to know unvaxxed kids who are autistic and also use this as proof that MMR is not "the" cause. Nobody ever claimed it might be the only cause. There are many different types of autism. MMR could be the cause of none or some but clearly not all. Anecdotally I know a family whose mother was an alcoholic. Her eldest has severe autism, and three other children are mildly autistic. One is notautistic at all. The oldest predates MMR. I always suspected alcohol/drug use prior to or during pregnancy could be a factor but I have no ability to test this hypothesis.

bruffin · 17/08/2018 14:45

here are the gmc transcripts of the Wakefield GMC fitness to practice proceedings for anyone who is interested

Cathmidston · 17/08/2018 14:46

Well here’s one link for you:
Dr William Thompson is currently a Senior Scientist at the CDC (Center for Disease Control), whose lawyers released a statement (read full statement here) from him on August 27, 2014 which included the following:
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe itis the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:47

If you think how rife drug use has become and when it began, I wonder how well it correlates with increase in neurological disorders in our childen? How could we study this though? People don't readily admit to recreational drug use.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:54

Did you read the correction to the bMJ article you have posted above MairyHole??

The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/response-john-stone). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378).

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 14:55

The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines

RoadToRivendell · 17/08/2018 14:56

Cathmidston unlike Quibbled, who engages with questions with thoughtful answers, I can no longer be bothered to respond to you because you refuse to acknowledge the serious problems with the Whale website.

I'm sure I could turn up all sorts of problems with what you've just posted, but you'll ignore them.

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 14:58

No I didn't and I agree I would exercise caution in reading such a study / article.

As noted I didn't read any of what I posted, some of it could be anti vax for all i know. The Oxford website is impartial and authoritative from what I have seen. (Sue linked to it...)

RoadToRivendell · 17/08/2018 14:59

Quibbled, links with big pharma is something we ought to be skeptical of. It does not change my view that you need to find some evidence of systematic corruption/falsification to prove your theory.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 15:01

Hang on..which theory are you talking about RoadToRivendell?

Cathmidston · 17/08/2018 15:02

Rivendell I wasn’t soliciting a response from you

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 15:02

So why post a load of random links relating to autism of you have no idea of the content, MairyHole?

MairyHole · 17/08/2018 15:31

I think you're determined to disagree with me Quibbled, let's leave it there.

Quibbled · 17/08/2018 15:45

MairyHole

I think you're determined to disagree with me Quibbled, let's leave it there.

Hmm