Anti Vaxx threads shouldn't be allowed

[turnthebiglightoff]

AIBU to suggest that anti vaxxer threads should be reported and removed? This site is so important to many members, impressionable women will inevitably take someone's word as gospel if they already have concerns themselves. I suggest the deletion message signposts to speak to your local NHS teams / GP / visit the NHS website etc. I don't think MN allows MLM promotion; arguably this is of greater importance as it could affect so many (children's) health.

Does anyone disagree? I'd be really interested to hear why. *I really don't mean this as a TAAT as I believe this is a wider issue.

Nah let them.

Then we can all tell them what selfish idiots they are.

It was threads where antivax could be discussed and refuted calmly and logically that helped me decide that the antivax fears were unfounded.

Anywhere discussion was shut down simply reinforced the scary idea that "they don't want you to talk about this".

My dc were vaccinated, but vaccine damage is a real thing that does exist. Pro vaccine people trying to pretend that it doesn’t is as awful as some of the things that anti vaxxers say.

I've never seen a vaccine proponent deny that vaccine damage happens. They have certainly pointed out that the danger is massively exaggerated thanks to the activities of outright liars and charlatans like Wakefield, but that's a straight statement of fact.

I believe that vaccine damage can happen. But in their very nature an anti vaxxer wouldn't have got their child vaccinated so the child would, I imagine, belong to a vaccine proponent.

The posters that claim vaccines have given children autism and quite charlatans and quacks are the danger. I believe there should be a thread warning. I'm on another thread where posters are advocating drinking in pregnancy - their choice of course but I wouldn't - and they're quoting a "health economist". Not a dr. People will listen to that advice. And maybe act on it. It's not right and I believe MN has a responsibility to suggest members review the current NHS guidelines for most things. It's not a perfect organisation but advice is from medical professionals, not Wakefield or "health economists".

Threads like these always highlight how hugely misunderstood the concept of freedom of speech is.

Freedom of speech is NOT freedom of misinformation or platform. No one has a right to spread falsehood, conspiracy or lies.

Let me guess.... eurosceptics and Trump supporters should be denied access to 'platforms' because they're objectively wrong.

What do you all mean by vaccine damage? When it's been proved it doesnt cause autism?

To me, 'vaccine damage' means adverse responses to a vaccine with long-term effects. That isn't restricted to autism (and i don't think anyone is claiming it is). It could mean a post-vaccine fever that caused a seizure, for example.

I think in the early days of polio vaccines there used to be a vaccine-induced polio which (compared to vaccine reactions these days) wasn't even all that uncommon. That would count as vaccine damage. And IIRC there is a very (very!) small risk of the MenB vaccine leading to Kawasaki disease.

Saying that these sorts of things never happened would be disingenuous. Exaggerating their risk and claiming these are reasons not to vaccinate is, however, much more so.

I do think there is at least a potential case for 'compulsory'* vaccination against specific diseases. The eradication of smallpox was due in part to compulsory vaccination. Germany is now introducing a requirement for measles vaccination before entry into childcare settings, after a series of nasty outbreaks including child deaths.

*Not in the sense of 'children being torn from their parents' arms and dragged off by force to the clinic'. More in the sense of 'access to particular services and benefits may be contingent upon proof vaccination against this particular disease'.

YABU - people shouldn't be forced to not to talk about their opinions and be silenced.

What do you all mean by vaccine damage? When it's been proved it doesnt cause autism?

It’s not just about the MMR and autism. There is a vaccine damage compensation fund for a reason as, rarely, it does happen

For example a small number of children were left with developing narcolepsy after receiving the swine flu vaccine

It's just I've noticed a few people on this thread saying their child had vaccine damage. I wondered if they just meant their child had a sore arm for a week or a temperature?

@TabbyMumz Do you really think that little of people, or are you just being deliberately goady?

No one classes a sore arm as vaccine damage

Massive allergic reaction, narcolepsy, temperature so high it requires hospitalisation, permanent brain damage... those kinds of things are among the things people mean by vaccine damage

The thankfully rare, but do happen, kind of effects

Not a sore arm and a temp that calpol can fix

"The thankfully rare, but do happen, kind of effects"
So if they are that kind of thing and very rare how come there seem to be quite a lot of people on mumsnet and this thread saying their child had vaccine damage? That's why I'm wondering if they mean the lesser type things like temperature etc.

What do you all mean by vaccine damage? When it's been proved it doesnt cause autism

There are far more vaccines than the MMR, which was the one linked with autism (and long before Wakefield by the way). Any medicine can have side effects - minor and major.

The vaccine damage legislation dates from the late 70s and was more to do with side effects that arose from the DTP vaccine (I believe). There were issues with the whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s (I didn't have it) and no doubt there are very rare, but very serious side effects with other vaccines too (including MMR, but not related to autism). The legislation allows for compensation for the very worst side effects.

So if they are that kind of thing and very rare how come there seem to be quite a lot of people on mumsnet and this thread saying their child had vaccine damage? That's why I'm wondering if they mean the lesser type things like temperature etc.

For the same reasons there seems to be a lot of people on Mumsnet with nightmare MILs, children with SEN, shitty husbands and nightmare neighbours...

People who have things go wrong in life tend to look for support, therefore a large parenting website will have have a higher than average proportion

Particularly on specific threads like vaccines, neighbours and MILs

We were recently staying in a Club Med hotel in France and our three year old grandson was with us. No children were allowed in the kids’ club without a certificate of vaccination. They were also all given a quick examination by the hotel doctor.

Quite right too. Feel free to avoid vaccination for your children but please don’t bring them anywhere near mine, or, more to the point don’t take them to countries where free universal vaccinations are not available. You can do terrible harm to vulnerable children there.

Vaccine damage.... We're all different and can all have very different reactions to a variety of drugs, both adults and children.
A high % of people can easily take paracetamol whereas a few might be highly allergic to it. Does this mean none of us should never take paracetamol?

YABVU it's not & never has been one size fits all & discussion therefore need to be had.

I think anti-vaxxers should be allowed to post their nonsense, just as I think TRAs should be allowed to spout rubbish about women with penises.

However, a mumsnet notice on each thread pointing to the NHS advice sounds very sensible.

Imho vaccine damage should be viewed on a par with anaesthetic risk. Yes things can and do go wrong but the risk/benefit is still far outweighed by the benefits.

If nothing else there is no way NHS funds would be paying out for national programmes without good reason so I’m inclined to have good faith in the numbers presented to me officially.

Dd was one of the first to have meningitis B under the national programme and I was really pleased she fell within the limits to have it.

Theres a huge difference between vaccine damage and vaccine reaction though? Vaccine reaction is what you might get with a flu jab, temperature, swollen arm etc. .the term vaccine damage to me means it's done some actual damage that isn't going to go away. I'm thinking that's incredibly rare?

"For the same reasons there seems to be a lot of people on Mumsnet with nightmare MILs, children with SEN, shitty husbands and nightmare neighbours.."
All these things are pretty common though? .

Since 1978 there have been just over 900 payments made under the government's vaccine damage compensation scheme.

fullfact.org/online/vaccine-damage-fund/

To qualify for the a payment under the scheme you need to have had a severe, damaging reaction to vaccine that has left you over 60% disabled (their term, not mine and I'm not sure how they assess it).

Vaccine damage is always a risk for anyone having vaccines but it is very rare and for the overwhelming majority of people there will be no serious or long-term effects from vaccines (other than the immunity conferred by said vaccine).

Tabby, yes, and posted about far more regularly than vaccine damaged kids!

Something being rare doesn't mean it happens to one or two people ever. It's rare in comparison to the population as a whole.

I've just counted and there are 6 people with direct experience (a child, themselves or close family member) of vaccine reaction.

That is hardly "quite a lot of people". There is no conspiracy here. It's a rare thing but does happen.