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'.

Vaccin is the French spelling you morons... it’s a French article

Cathmidston, the title of that graph is clearly written in English, so the spelling of vaccine is wrong. Regardless, the distinct amateurishness of screenshots with incorrect aspect ratios of graphs that have been hastily slapped together in Microsoft office brings in to doubt the quality of that whole article, which is unsurprising since it's wrong, as has been pointed out.

Sorry, you are linking to a supposedly scientific article that has pop up ads for herbs, and makes its scarier points in LOUD CAPITALS! ALERT! and you call us morons?

Vaccin is the French spelling you morons... it’s a French article

Vaccin may be the French spelling but mathematics is universal and the numbers on your website don't add up.

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

I rarely laugh at 6am. Today I did. Thanks @Teaonthebedsheets.

vaccine reactions are dismissed as tinfoilhattery.

I don’t think this is true - it’s widely acknowledged that adverse reactions to vaccines can occur. It’s just that it’s incredibly rare - so, so much rarer than the diseases they prevent are / would be without vaccines.

Meanwhile...
Does It matter if virtually all involved in a measles outbreak were not vaccinated?

ascienceenthusiast.com/only-one-kid-out-of-49-involved-in-the-current-measles-outbreak-received-a-vaccine/

Adverse effects of vaccination are NOT discounted. They end up on lists of side effects, and warnings, because there's monitoring (e.g. earlier cdc link).
But a very small number of cases is not enough to deem the vaccine unsafe for the whole population.

1 in a 1000 000 cases is indeed very low and safer than most things we do.

Odds of dying and of injury (US):
injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/data-details/

Stop hanging around dogs and motor vehicles. Ban them.

Somehow it became ok to criticise antibiotic use but not jabs.

If you don't understand why antibiotic use is criticised (and vaccine use is also discussed is criticised, but, as I pointed out earlier, not the vaccines nor for the same reasons as anti-vaxxers), why are you even attempting to discuss how vaccines are tested?
Genuine question.

It's hard to respond to posts that include so many factual errors given as certainties.

Again, how do people who know and understand so little about how medicine is tested, implemented, monitored or used feel qualified to spout anything about it?

I'd have teams of brain surgery web critics at every operation.
Or maybe football clubs should recruit fans to coach their teams.
Oh, wait.

For those saying measles outbreaks have been recently in the vaccinated population. It’s a simple example of statistics. Most of the country are intelligent enough to vaccinate their children as they don’t want them to die from a preventable infectious disease. Let’s say for an example that vaccines are 99.9% effective. In a population of 66 million vaccinated individuals 66 thousand would not have developed appropriate immunological memory to be immune. That’s a much higher number than the couple of hundred tin foil hat antivaxxers who didn’t get vaccinated due to “autism! Metal! Foetuses!” Etc. You need to look at infection rates as a % of the unvaccinated v vaccinated populations. There are a huge number of studies correlating outbreaks in both vaccinated and unvaccinated in areas with high rates of non vaccination. Because you have these idiots walking around like giant disease incubators increasing the rate of transmission to everyone else.

how do people who know and understand so little about how medicine is tested, implemented, monitored or used feel qualified to spout anything about it?

I know! I don't think they do enough about critical thinking at school. Surely it's fundamental to long term wellbeing.

“Let’s say for an example that vaccines are 99.9% effective. In a population of 66 million vaccinated individuals 66 thousand would not have developed appropriate immunological memory to be immune. That’s a much higher number than the couple of hundred tin foil hat antivaxxers who didn’t get vaccinated due to “autism! Metal! Foetuses!” Etc. You need to look at infection rates as a % of the unvaccinated v vaccinated populations”.

Don’t confuse the “open minded” anti-vaccination lot with genuine stastistics.

And the reason why I know anti-vaxxers do not understand zippy’s stats is that it’s a standard line of theirs (both here and IRC) to spout, “If vaccines are so effective why are you worried about coming into contact with my non-vaccinated child?”

If you don't understand why antibiotic use is criticised why are you even attempting to discuss how vaccines are tested?

I suppose I was musing about how patients can ask questions like "is this the right medication for me?" about everything except vaccines. If the jabs are questioned, the questioner is made to feel stupid and small.

Like I said, it's a funny area of medicine.

Loving the way that someone who can't see the blatant flaws in those so-called Vaccine Impact graphs calls the rest of us morons.

I suppose I was musing about how patients can ask questions like "is this the right medication for me?" about everything except vaccines. If the jabs are questioned, the questioner is made to feel stupid and small.

Not unless you question vaccines in general. Most patients won't question if a GP prescribes antibiotics.

In both cases, if you have a history of allergic reactions, or bad reactions, it will be taken into account. If the vaccine doesn't apply to you, you can discuss it. If you are going to travel and require vaccinations, you can discuss it with your GP.
An example is the BCG vaccine that may be recommended in certain areas, but not others, and it will be discussed whether it's appropriate or not.

Not unless you question vaccines in general.

That's true. Although where I live it's one and the same for childhood vaccines. To get the childhood jabs on the local version of the NHS you have to get all of them at the prescribed times. There's no discussion about whether one or more may be inappropriate and definitely no possibility of selective vaccination or spacing them out.

So the parents here who would like to know more about their own child's health profile and whether there will be a negative impact of a particular vaccine are told "take it all or leave it all."

Doesn't that seem a bit excessive?

To get the childhood jabs on the local version of the NHS you have to get all of them at the prescribed times

Do you? My ds had his MMR later than usual (everything else on schedule). I think they're only too glad to welcome you back into the vaccination fold.

My gp was more than happy to discuss ds vaccines. Hre had gefs+ which is abnormal fc and the would have done it at hospital if we had asked.

how do people who know and understand so little about how medicine is tested, implemented, monitored or used feel qualified to spout anything about it?

So should we do away with informed consent? Personally I like to double check any medicine or treatment offered to myself or my loved ones as, in my line of work, I see how any health problems can be medically-induced and frankly I have absolutely no faith in pharmaceutical companies.

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

But they haven't done that. They've not (yet) vaccinated against something that can cause a dangerous cancer, but for which there is extremely effective screening. Presumably in time, smear tests will be done less often for those who've been vaccinated I assume they still need to be done because HPV doesn't cause all cervical cancers. They can either choose to have the vaccination or go for smear tests more often. It's sensible to have it before you are sexually active but you can have it later than 12 and later than 18 if you pay for it.

Not true af all. I spaced my children’s vaccines out and they were happy to
Support it as it meant they were getting done.

Also meant I didn’t need rotavirus.

The absolute shite that some people post on here...

@havingtochangeusernameagain and @Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

Perhaps we don't live in the same country. Apologies if that was unclear, I thought my username gave it away

but for which there is extremely effective screening.

Are you joking? Screening every 3 years vs prevention?

Informed consent is different from spouting criticism about vaccines here.
Informed consent is about obtaining information and asking questions, not pretending to know something.