Aibu to think MN should delete anti-vax threads?

[FigandVanilla]

The anti-vax movement is becoming a public health issue, and children’s lives are being endangered as a result. This obviously doesn’t only affect the children of anti-vaxxers, but also children who rely on herd immunity to protect them.

There is no scientific basis of any kind to support the anti-vax movement. It is an area where the scientific and medical community are in total agreement - vaccines save lives.

But there are not infrequent threads on Mumsnet where anti-vax sentiment spreads. And it’s always heartening to see the overwhelming push back against this from MNers. But I fear that there will inevitably still be parents who are swayed by these posts.

I am all for debate, but this isn’t a debatable issue. It’s an issue where one side is selling lies and misinformation. Facts are facts, and the truth is anti-vax threads exist because of a denial of the facts.

Should these threads be allowed? Or does MN have some kind of moral duty to children that means they ought to refuse to be a platform for a movement which is based on lies and which is actively harmful to children?

Well if I was to come to mumsnet and say
"AIBU to worry about the safety of vaccines?" Then without further ado i would be bombarded with a torrent of sheeple explaining to me that Wakefield was wrong , there is no autism link etc etc. Then people would call me an idiot, suggest I'm a hippy, insuate I'm a believer in new age medicine (we're talking crystals and joss sticks territory, that's the accusation) .
But actually I could have just wanted to speak about ACTUAL real safety concerns , concerns about ingredients, scheduling , seizures etc.
NOTHING to do with Wakefield, mmr, or mumsnets collective assumption that the fact I ask a question about the safety of vaccinations after my child has an epic reaction to one means I am an amber necklace wearing dreadlocked hippy!

If posts referring to the biggest socio-economic and political upheaval are corralled into their own topic, then maybe MNHQ could consider creating a 'woo, conjecture and anti-science topic'.

That way, posters wishing to ignore medical science in favour of 'opinions' based on nothing at all have somewhere to bang their heads about nonsense, whilst the rest of us with a modicum of critical thinking skills can exist in peace.

What mumsnet should ban
Are dangerous posters who jump to bite at every single thread about vaccinations. Those who attack people innocently questioning the safety of vaccines and make damaging slurs against their characters and judgement.

The "right to free speech" only means you can't be prosecuted or harmed by the state for sharing your views - unless they fall under hate crime.

it does not mean that every view or voice has an equal legal or moral right to a platform in a commercial space.
Websites and other commercial spaces have the ability to choose what they want to be broadcast.

I would argue with the decline of the authoritative print and tv media, it falls to any site that can prove it has a large following (ie mumsnet) to create a standard of "public information ethics" to which it subscribes.

In the same way as mumsnet posts and intervenes on issues of safety and risk like suicide, DV, reminding people not to give money to plausible trolls, the site should note where views are counter to well established facts.

Might mean mumsnet needs to employ proper old fashioned sub editors. I'd pay for that.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10834778/Massive-dose-of-measles-virus-kills-cancer-cells.html?fbclid=IwAR3Dd6THhDoKrsqw-yHkII0TOQ43Zeyr7xL9FyWGG4LMl3Jyr7HRzMBB2P8

There’s a lot we don’t yet understand imo, it’s not clear cut.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/21/most-common-childhood-cancer-partly-caused-by-lack-of-infection

Ok @hipposarerad
And then where does a Mum go...
If her child experiences a dramatic seizure seconds after a vaccine and she feels the need to question that without judgement?
Because the nhs is not that place. We've already established (and experienced) that that will be 'a coincidence '???

Think you are tarring all the "sheeple" (as you put it) with one brush. Some posters are very rude to those questioning the safety of vaccines, then again some of those questioning the safety of vaccines do completely reject modern medicine and can themselves be extremely abrasive. Like most controversial topics on here. But I would like parents who are worried to feel that it's a good place to obtain information so I agree not necessary to jump on genuine questions regarding weighing up risks and benefits in individual cases such as where a child may be more susceptible to side effects.

I disagree with that.
I have rarely come across a poster who rejects all modern medicine.
That is a dangerous suggestion In itself.

What MN should do is start a campaign to make vaccines obligatory in the UK. Parents can have whatever views on vaccines they like but they don't have a right to endanger their children's health because of them. If a medical professional judges that a child is better off avoiding some or all vaccines that is a perfectly legitimate exemption, all other children should be vaccinated.

In the same way that parents don't have a right to refuse life saving treatment on behalf of their children because, for example, they think god disapproves of blood products, they don't have a right to refuse vaccines.

Oh yes
And then It could start a campaign telling us who to vote for.
And then it could start a campaign to spy on our neighbours and report them if they have alternative political viewpoints. We have the power

Cocochicago Some people do react badly to vaccinations. Nobody has said that vaccine injury doesn't happen in rare cases. The NHS knows that, in cases where there is a family history of reacting to a vaccination, or known allergies to ingredients, then that person can not receive the vaccination. It's one of the reasons why it's important for those who don't react badly to receive their vaccinations in order to protect those who can't be vaccinated (herd immunity).

The scenario you give - a child seizing 'seconds' after a vaccination - sounds terrifying. Did this happen to your family? I'm very sorry, that sounds appalling and not typical of the NHS that the HCP giving your child the vaccine did not step in when your child reacted. There is a patient advocacy organisation called PALS who can help you.

This doesn't change the fact that trying to put personal opinion on the same level of empirical evidence is a backwards step.

I have changed my mind and think they shouldn't delete them.
As we are being emotive Then antivaxxers can advise me what parting message I should give to my daughter if I die from contracting measles. I am immunocompromised,have never had measles and there is no herd immunity in my area. People seem so ready to make this personal choice for me, I am sure than can offer advice to my family if I die.
Personal choice? My arse.

Cocochicago
Two of the posters on the other thread have stated they reject mainstream medicine and one doesn't believe in germ theory. I've seen it on another thread too.

What do you mean it is a "dangerous suggestion"?

Cocochicago you can think whatever you want, I never said you couldn't. All I said that the state should ensure that your DCs and other DCs don't suffer and die because of your irrational beliefs. Anti-vaxxers don't have a political viewpoint, they have an irrational assessment of scientific facts - fine, I am happy for them to continue having it, but not when it affects their kids.

Deleting posts isn't stopping free speech. Speak all you want just make sure it's not purposely spreading false information about the danger of vaccines. I completely agree they should be deleted.

Thanks @booboostwo i have no irrational beliefs?
I have four fully vaccinated children...

YABU. The only way antivax arguments can be defeated is through open discussion.

@hipposarerad
What you suggested is that people who question vaccine safety have under par critical thinking skills.
Which just isn't right.
Once again.
My children are all fully vaccinated.

And @booboostwo you are actually the perfect example of the kind of poster I refer to. You don't read the thread. You assume I don't vaccinate. You adopt a threatening nasty tone. You assume I'm irresponsible . It's disgusting.

@booboostwo an alternative is campaigning for your school to require vaccinations (children who cannot have them exempt of course). Several schools in Australia have adopted this approach with success. Giving the government the right to force medical procedures on your child is illiberal to say the least. Refusing services where it may endanger other service users on the other hand is perfectly reasonable.

Why ? Do you think they should they delete everything you don’t like or agree upon ?

Rejecting mainstream medicine
Is not rejecting modern medicine.
Just look at all the people who pay thousands to go to Germany for certain cancer treatments that years ago were classed as new age madness. There are treatments far more modern than what is mainstream. Most of it is very expensive.
Rejecting mainstream medicine does not always mean reverting to the dark ages

And as for germ theory, there was a fairly recent comprehensive biography of Louis Pasteur that cast some interesting revelations about his theories .

But just to clarify once more.
That isn't my position.

Cocochicago people who question vaccination safety apropos of nothing at all and who continue to do so even after having their questions answered because they have a 'feeling' or some other kind of vague notion, absolutely are lacking in critical thinking skills.

You haven't said whether or not the poor child in your example - who reacted within "seconds" of receiving a vaccination - was your child, or indeed if that scenario ever actually happened at all, but I reiterate that if this did actually happen then PALS can help.

There's a quote from someone or other, I forget who, that says something like:

"You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts".