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?

Rejecting germ theory is rejecting the very foundation of most modern medicine. I think you are splitting hairs to try to take offence to what was a conciliatory post. I have no wish to engage with someone determined to take offence, so all the best to you.

Cocochicago I made I general point, I never referred to you personally. You replied directly to my post so I responded to you.

Racecardriver countries that have compulsory vaccination, e.g. Italy and France, require proof for enrollment in public schools. It’s a means of checking compliance, and a good one at that.
I am not aware of any legal system that allows parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children against medical advice. Even liberal medico legal system like those of he U.K. that allow competent adults to refuse life saving treatment draw the line at extending these beliefs to children. So you can refuse a blood transfusion for yourself if you are a Jehovahs Witness, but not for your children. Even then, if you have a serious, communicable disease you may be treated and detained against your will for the good of others.

What's anti-vax?

@hipposarerad thank you...
I'm eighteen years down the line and five full sets of vaccines/ children later.
And pals (or the then equivalent ) dismissed this as a coincidence.
Questioning vaccine safety is as normal as questioning the ingredients in a yoghurt. Parents mustn't be shot down in flames for doing so.

I agree OP
Anti vaxxers are just idiots that have seen something on the internet and threads will just fill their heads with garbage all the more.

Personally, I'm in favour of instantly deleting threads that bully and throw cheap insults at whole groups of diverse people, leaving the adults to discuss and share opinions, offering counterarguments and civil criticism, whichever opinions they may hold.

Me too

OP, are you also a fan of universities no-platforming any speakers who might hold controversial views, so as to shield young adults from learning that not everybody holds the exact same opinions and beliefs as them?

Do you believe that people in general can best be educated about the world by just shutting down anybody with an unpopular opinion - or even those who want to discuss the reasoning behind unpopular opinions?

Could you please supply us with a list of topics that YOU have decided are definitively sorted and must therefore no longer be discussed or questioned?

Do you live in North Korea?

Do you truly love Big Brother?

@teaonthebedsheets
It's more than though, but I appreciate what you're saying.
For me it's this assumption that as soon as parent decides not to vaccinate they are painted as an irresponsible lunatic on the edges of society, one that fails to engage with health practitioners etc.
It isn't the case. You can be perfectly fine with the concepts of eg modern neurosurgery, imaging, certain medicine etc while simultaneously rejecting the idea of vaccinations. It's REALLY important that we don't confuse matters.

Cocochicago

We are going to go around in circles. You have had an awful experience. I can't possibly know whether yours was coincidence, allergic reaction etc.

It's a question of numbers (cold as that sounds) - a great many more vaccinated people suffer no ill effects after vaccination than do suffer. Medical advice can be taken or ignored, but I still don't believe science and opinion are on an equal footing.

I'm out.

‘Everyone is entitled to their own opinion’ is not an applicable statement when it comes to vaccines, because ‘vaccines work’ is a fact, not an opinion. You can have your own opinion about whether parents should be required by law to vaccinate their kids, but if your ‘opinion’ is that vaccinations don’t work, or that the risks are higher than the benefits, then what you’re actually doing is saying verifiably untrue things.

Nobody is saying that there can never be negative consequences to vaccines. In very rare cases, people may have a bad reaction to them. There is a fund to pay compensation in cases such as these. And these cases are tragic and heartbreaking and awful. For the people affected, I imagine it’s hideously difficult to see pro-vaccination statements. But these cases are rare - so, so rare. So compare that to 1.7 million people dying of tuberculosis, and it’s very clear where the risk actually lies.

And if you want to encourage other people not to vaccinate, you have to think about that risk. You have to think about immunocompromised kids, and kids with allergies. You have to recognise that you’re vastly incredibly the risk that those kids and your kids will die of measles or whatever, to avoid the tiny risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

On that basis, I think that threads which present anti-vax statements as if they’re true and reasonable are dangerous and immoral. And is that something Mumsnet wants to be a platform for? Is this site happy / willing to host information which is actively harmful to children?

I think that’s a valid question.

*increasing the risk

Personally, I'm in favour of instantly deleting threads that bully and throw cheap insults at whole groups of diverse people, leaving the adults to discuss and share opinions, offering counterarguments and civil criticism, whichever opinions they may hold. so anything pro remain then? Anti trans? In fact you might as well get rid of the brexit and the FWR boards altogether.

Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for....

As for posters dismissing a poster who had an experience of a bad reaction to a vaccine, the reality is that we have a vaccine damage fund in this country for a reason, and just as much as it is rare to have such an adverse reaction, it’s obviously common enough that a fund exists for the purpose. Equally it is exceptionally rare to have an adverse reaction to chicken pox for instance (and no, I’m not counting scarring in adverse).

But posters would be very quick to point out that a parent who lost a child due to complications from cp would obviously not agree that it’s a mild illness, whereas a parent whose child had a bad reaction to a vaccination is fair game?

There is a vast, vast difference between just dismissing whole arguments and actually questioning potential issues (on both sides).

We should never, ever stop questioning the validity of any kind of health decisions, because bad things do happen. And just as much as most children should be vaccinated and most vaccinations are not harmful to the majority of children, it’s not wrong to ask the questions if there are concerns.

Equally we should be questioning as a society for instance why we have so many immunity issues now which never existed before. And why cancer is so prevalent meaning so many people are on chemo.

Nobody should ever just blindly accept what the government tells us and never question any of it. On any count.

Some people react to penicillin. I have yet to see an anti-antibiotic campaign because antibiotics aren't safe. Nobody is suspicious about the big pharma that produce them

On the contrary, many people would be happy to drown in antibiotics to treat a cold.

I wonder if the all the proponents of free speech above all else would be happy with someone standing outside their front garden holding a megaphone and making some serious accusations about them to their neighbours? Free speech, innit?

joanmcc the vast majority of posters on MN don’t understand free speech and think that posting some cliche about defending people’s right to say whatever they like basically makes them Winston Churchill.

No, people should be allowed to state their whack unscientific opinions.

@FigandVanilla unsurprising overlap between flawed opinion masquerading as scientific fact on vaccines, and flawed opinion masquerading as legal fact on free speech.

Lweji except there are campaigns to reduce the use of antibiotics as they are being over-used to the point that they are no longer effective.

I am not personally of the view that vaccines cause this and that condition, however I do believe that we over-vaccinate, and that e.g. as in my post above, illnesses and their potential outcomes are being exaggerated in order to scare people into vaccinating against them.

The problem is that the serious illnesses such as rubella and measles need to be vaccinated against, however those such as chicken pox do not on the whole, unless there is a serious issue which means cp could be dangerous to individuals, such as the flu for instance which has vaccination available to those in certain groups rather than a whole level of society.

So while I am not in agreement with those who refuse to give any vaccinations, I do think that over-vaccinating is having the effect of overloading children’s immune systems to the point that we are now ending up with a much bigger sub-section of society with immunity-related conditions. I believe there are also other factors at play here such as over-use of anti bacterial agents, cleaning products etc etc and this needs questioning as much as anything else.

Personally, I'm in favour of instantly deleting threads that bully and throw cheap insults at whole groups of diverse people, leaving the adults to discuss and share opinions, offering counterarguments and civil criticism, whichever opinions they may hold. so anything pro remain then? Anti trans? In fact you might as well get rid of the brexit and the FWR boards altogether.

I'm not sure I follow what your point is? I enjoy Talk when people use it as an adult forum to discuss and debate their differing views. It's just when people want to use it as a playground and shout insults at people in place of discussion. I think they think it makes them sound smart and puts the other person firmly in their place. It really doesn't.

joanmcc the vast majority of posters on MN don’t understand free speech and think that posting some cliche about defending people’s right to say whatever they like basically makes them Winston Churchill.

How do you define Free Speech then? Are you one of these people who parrots "I'm tolerant of everything except intolerance" without realising the absurd contradiction of what that actually means?

What percentage of people do you believe should have to share a view before the remaining people are automatically legally banned from ever being allowed to discuss it?

@SummerGems

I should add, I was genuinely puzzled about your first comment responding to what I wrote, but I do agree with pretty much everything else you said.

People should be free to hold anti vax opinions, and to post about them. And I should be free to say I think they are fucking idiots and post about it.

I wonder if the all the proponents of free speech above all else would be happy with someone standing outside their front garden holding a megaphone and making some serious accusations about them to their neighbours? Free speech, innit?

How does causing a breach of the peace, quite probably slandering/defaming an individual and possibly inciting violence, or at least public unrest in any way compare with calmly discussing their opinions of, and personal choices relating to, a non-human principle which potentially affects us all?

A much more logical analogy would be if people were standing outside GP surgeries with placards and megaphones hurling abuse at the public and urging/pressuring people not to access vaccination themselves. That would indeed be appalling.

Having and expressing unpopular opinions on any topic insofar as it affects you personally - and making legal decisions on the basis of those opinions - is in no way unreasonable.

I personally detest smoking and would therefore utterly refuse and resist any attempts to encourage or force me to smoke a cigarette. However, I don't stand and picket outside tobacconists or harangue people who choose to buy them and smoke them in a legal place.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the exact lack of understanding I was talking about.

Free speech does not mean (and has never meant) that any person can say whatever they like without consequences. We have always placed limits on what we, as a society, will tolerate people saying. That’s why I’m not allowed to go and tell your boss that I think you murder puppies. It’s why hate preachers aren’t allowed to incite their followers to violence.

Free speech governs the relationship between a government and its citizens. It determines that, outwith the restrictions noted above, the government cannot control what you are and aren’t allowed to say. It means you can be penalised for making statements that the government doesn’t agree with.

Free speech has nothing to do with non-governmental platforms like Mumsnet. Mumsnet can set whatever rules they like about what people can and can’t post. They could decide that from now on, nobody can start threads about MILs, or Mr Tumble, or anything else they decided. That is their right as an organisation which is not required to adhere to free speech laws.

It is absolutely not an infringement of any persons rights to free speech to be told by a particular platform that you can’t share a specific view there. Any non-governmental platform can set its own rules in respect of the views and information it will tolerate.

People should be free to hold anti vax opinions, and to post about them. And I should be free to say I think they are fucking idiots and post about it.

Fair enough - but how do you think it helps your case to hurl insults instead of arguing against their stated reasons/beliefs? In fact, why do you even need to make a case against an individual unless they're trying to deny you your right to choose vaccines for yourself and your family?

I'm no fan of football, but I believe they have an expression 'go for the ball and not the man'.