To think that anti-vaxers may actually being onto something?

[viiz]

I don't have children myself yet but I don't know what I would chose when the time comes. Most of pro vax/anti vax threads turns nasty with people not even willing to try and look at things with others side perspective. Not willing to even consider points of view different than their own and that's a very silly approach. People believed a lot of things that turned out to be false over the years and centuries. Why not to doubt a little?

I was born in early '80s and not in UK. Myself, my siblings and friends were all vaccinated at the time. I don't even remember what I was vaccinated against but had to be pretty basic. Just a few jabs throughout my whole childhood/teen years and nothing 3in1 or 10in1 or whatever they'll bring next.

Now to the point. Reading through hundreds of threads it jumps at me how many children have neurological, behavioural or emotional disorders. No one else sees it really?? I don't know even one person from my childhood including friends, extended family , neighbours etc who would have ADS or ADHD or any other issues like that. I see their children to have it though.

AIBU to consider there could be a link here??

Please be gentle. I hope to have a discussion here. I don't disrespect anyone's views and I only ask to try and ask yourself 'what if'.

The reason anti-vaxxers get so defensive about who is ‘credible’ and who is ‘allowed to have an opinion’ is that they know fine well they can’t product a single person with relevant medical and scientific experience who hasn’t been totally discredited and found to be a fraud to speak out against vaccines.

If the only people who support your position are liars and charlatans, of course you’re going to deny that things like credibility, integrity, peer support, evidence and experience are important.

And once again, Cathmidston is posting rubbish. The graphs in that PDF are conveniently using per 100,000 data in an attempt to obfuscate the numbers, but as you can see from;

fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/histstatus/hstat1970_cen_1975_v1.pdd (page 58)

The whooping cough did go from relatively low to almost completely gone as soon as vaccines were introduced. They are also conveniently using mortality rates instead of indecent rates for things like measles, ignoring the long term disabilities and health effects that can occur even if you survive, so they can ignore graphs like;

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Measles_US_1944-2007_inset.png

That show a clear and significant effect of vaccines.

and how about the anti sickness pills given to pregnant women many years ago which caused deformative births?
i think their trial is still ongoing.

Are you talking about thalidomide? If so, that's a great example of what can happen when the proper research isn't done before they make it to market. It's not really relevant to vaccines, however, as this research has been done for virtually all of them.

Thalidomide is used to treat Leprosy nowadays.
Thalidomide was never a problem in the US because Dr Frances Kelsey spotted side effects in Europe that werent declared and refused to licence it in US

It is because of Thalidomide they now have to have 3 phase trials today.

’It's not really relevant to vaccines, however, as this research has been done for virtually all of them.’
That’s hilarious! They don’t even use true placebos in any of the testing and even the inserts of those recommended during pregnancy say it’s not been verified for use by pregnant women

They don’t even use true placebos in any of the testing

Once again, Cathmidston, you're wrong, they are used in a number of vaccine studies:

vaxopedia.org/2017/07/10/where-are-the-double-blind-placebo-controlled-randomized-trials-about-vaccines/

Though there are very valid ethical reasons as to why they don't, also covered in that post.

There is also plenty of research into the safety of vaccines for use while pregnant;

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700667/

It's interesting that you complain about lack of control or placebo controlled groups for pro-vaccine studies, and yet you don't seem to apply this level of scrutiny to the numerous completely rubbish studies you've linked on here.

We aren’t there yet, despite the glossy brochures and reassuring studies

I wonder how you allow your girls out of the house...

I also wonder what girls will think upon reaching adulthood of a parent who refused to vaccinate them against a dangerous cancer.

What will happen if your teenage girl wants to be vaccinated?

@Cathmidston

even the inserts of those recommended during pregnancy say it’s not been verified for use by pregnant women

For very obvious reasons - not because it's unsafe, because it's unethical to test on pregnant women. Just as it's unethical to withold vaccinations for the sake of research.

CDC about HPV vaccination.

www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv-vaccine.html

Anyone may want to follow links to see how they monitor safety and side effects.

And quite frankly, rare adverse effects, can be caused by food. People die from food poisoning, but I'm yet to see parents ban children from eating without sterilising their food first.

lweji I would of course let her. I would suggest she waited a few more years.

So because I question vaccines, I’m an ultra neurotic mother who therefore cossets my child? Is that the best you can do in terms of a rebuttal re HPV?

Please be accurate. We aren’t vaccinating against a “dangerous cancer”. We are vaccinating againt some strains of a virus that is linked to the cancer. Other strains are linked to it too; in fact many are and they aren’t vaccinated against.

There have been some pretty sad and disturbing threads about the vaccine on mumsnet. All anecdotal of course. But the dismissal by medics is horrifying.

I’m not going to go on any more. Your child; your choice. I’m watching and waiting for now.

By the way that is American. Interesting it doesn’t ever refer to POTs she CFS, which seem to kick in a few weeks after the vaccine. It’s a bloody outrage to be honest.

@PhilomenaCunks I think the placebo thing is because saline is rarely, if ever, used.

The new vaccine is normally tested against an older vaccine or against the vaccine vehicle which includes heavy metals etc.

I understand why - they want to test with or without the antigen, binary. That's fine, that's how a good study works, isolating just one variable.

The problem is that no-one has ever conducted a double blind study between a full vaccine schedule and a completely unvaccinated cohort.

That is also understandable (who would sign their kid up to either get all the shots or none, with no knowledge of which it was going to be?), but it really fails to prove the efficacy of a full vaccine schedule when elements like nutrition and sanitation are controlled for.

The only thing anti vaxxers are potentially onto is a Darwin award by proxy. Pretty tragic really.

but it really fails to prove the efficacy of a full vaccine schedule when elements like nutrition and sanitation are controlled for

Saying it fails to prove is a little strong. It's by no means a perfect test, but there isn't a perfect test that isn't unethical - you'd have to tell someone you're vaccinating them when you're just giving someone a placebo, placing them at risk. On top of that, it's often less useful in medicine to know whether something's better than placebo, it's more helpful to know if it's better than the current treatment.

The lack of a placebo controlled group isn't a reason to completely dismiss the results of a study, it can be contextualized in a larger discussion of a vaccine's efficacy and safety along with other studies, that paint a more clear picture together.

On top of that, it's often less useful in medicine to know whether something's better than placebo, it's more helpful to know if it's better than the current treatment.

You're right. I guess the issue with vaccines is that the original placebo tests (treatment vs no treatment with all other factors controlled) doesn't really exist.

I'm not having an anti-vaccine rant, only pointing out that this is a funny area of medicine. Vaccines and, say, penicillin were borne out of an immediate and urgent need. Neither of them were tested against a placebo as it became so clear that they worked. Yet somehow penicillin allergies/reactions are accepted & acknowledged while vaccine reactions are dismissed as tinfoilhattery. Somehow it became ok to criticise antibiotic use but not jabs.

Maybe it's a bad comparison. Still, the vehement and somehow vicious reaction to anyone who asks (about the vaccines) "is this really the right medication for me?" bothers me.

vaccineimpact.com/2019/french-cancer-surgeon-statistics-show-hpv-gardasil-vaccine-linked-to-increased-cervical-cancer-rates-after-years-of-decline-due-to-pap-smears/

There are double blind placebo trials for vaccines. I don’t understand why anti-vaxxers think there aren’t. It’s like at one point someone yelled “there’s no placebos!” Into the anti-vax echo chamber and no one has the capability of checking. Research is done at a lab bench not at your computer screen. The whole anti-vax phenomena is a giant circle jerk of people wanting to feel intelligent by spewing information online and acting like they are racking up the publications in nature but would actually fail first year undergrad immunology.

Also cite your claims with peer reviewed literature not dodgy websites or articles published in fake journals that are the equivalent of the science version of “take a break” magazine.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204505701017

This took approximately 20 seconds to find. Go on pub med and type in vaccine double blind placebo and there is a whole assortment of literature at your disposal

Bloody hell Cathmidston, that page is actually insane! I'm fairly innumerate and even I can work out that that is absolute nonsense. How can you post that??

Cathmidston how on earth do you think that's a quality article? They can't even spell check their own graphs. Regardless, you're wrong again;

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26908697
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29859731

You're starting to make a habit of this.

Cathmidstonhow on earth do you think that's a quality article? They can't even spell check their own graphs. Regardless, you're wrong again. You're starting to make a habit of this

Starting to? I think that habit started when she declined vaccination.

But yes, you're right, her sources are ridiculous.

On one thread Cath did link to a website which claimed to be able to prove the existence of aliens. It was very funny.

That vaccine impact graph is hilarious. Schools should use it as a "Spot the basic numeracy error" test: it would probably be appropriate at around age 9 level.