All of you who CHOOSE not to vaccinate your children

[UniqueAndAmazing]

Do you realise that's the reason why there's now an epidemic of measles in Wales?

You know children with auto-immune problems, children with cancers, children with allergies that mean they can't be medicated, children who react badly to drugs?
You know them? They're suffering because of you not wanting to vaccinate your child.

You have no medical reason for not vaccinating, but plenty of reasons TO vaccinate.

You are causing a whole generation of children to be endangered from a preventable disease.

Measles can be fatal
(that means it can kill )

Really? I doubt it. It's a terrible beginning. Or you have to accept that "the best way to avoid vaccine adverse effects is not to have any vaccines" is also a good beginning. It's so simplistic as to be almost pointless.

"You could say "the best way not to suffer the effects of vaccination is not to have any". It's just as true."

That's easy though: just shelter behind herd immunity.

That doesn't even mean anything Wearsmink.

Yes it does. Think hard. It'll come.

No it doesn't. I suggest you think about it yourself.

If everyone followed "the best way to avoid the adverse effects of vaccinations is to avoid having any" then there would be only natural herd immunity, or in your probable view no herd immunity at all.

You wouldn't be sheltering behind anyone else, as everyone would be in the same position.

PigletJohn

"value where mortality rates are extremely high"

so not where mortality rates are low, average, or fairly high, then? Not where it can prevent suffering from, for example, sores over the skin, including the mouth, eyes, scalp and genitals; not where it can prevent a bit of pneumonia, sight and hearing damage, and a bit of brain damage?

PJ, I gave a couple of examples. You haven't quoted the other part of my post which could cover the above - the value of vaccination where parents feel it's in their children's best interests.

I notice that the first part of your disease description could apply to Chickenpox (which I think results in around 20 deaths per year in England and Wales). How do you feel about its absence from the childhood immunisation programme here?

The other side effects you describe are more serious complications, for which risk factors discussed earlier in the thread are relevant.

I do wonder why strong views in favour of vaccination against particular diseases often happen to coincide with diseases specified in the department of health's immunisation programme. Do people also feel passionately about striking out other causes of mortality, which might have less campaigning weight behind them?

This is the thread about an "epidemic of measles in Wales"

Widening the discussion with fog and verbosity prevents clarity.

Remember that I asked you "Do you think there are any upsides to the vaccination process?"

You've made it clear that you don't value vaccination much. Or are you going to say now that you do value it so where mortality rates are low, average, or fairly high, then? And where it can prevent suffering from, for example, sores over the skin, including the mouth, eyes, scalp and genitals; not where it can prevent a bit of pneumonia, sight and hearing damage, and a bit of brain damage?

I certainly do. Do you?

I think outbreak is probably a more appropriate term. Most of the cases weren't confirmed in the end. Piglet, do you want to admit that we might as well say "the best way to avoid the adverse effects of vaccination is not to have any vaccines"? Because it's nice and simple, and avoids fog and verbosity, and is undoubtedly true.

By the way, fascicle did answer that question of yours, immediately and very directly. Why are you asking again.

fascicle said that in her opinion, vaccination is only of value where mortality rates are extremely high

(and, she added, if parents think it's worth having)

I am somewhat shocked that she does not think vaccination is of value where mortality rates are low, average, or fairly high. Not where it can prevent suffering from, for example, sores over the skin, including the mouth, eyes, scalp and genitals; not where it can prevent a bit of pneumonia, sight and hearing damage, and a bit of brain damage, so I gave her the opportunity to reconsider her answer.

She has now had that opportunity, but does not agree with me that vaccination is of value in such cases.

fascicle also refuses to accept that the best way not to suffer the effects of a disease is not to catch it, which I find stunning.

Well fascicle is here and I'm sure she'll have a competent response. I think your questions look a lot like what you might call fog and verbosity.

Would you like to answer my question? You've had lots of opportunity. Shall I just accept your silence as a yes?

fascicle has already responded twice, and doesn't share my view that vaccination is of value where mortality rates are low, average, or fairly high. Where it can prevent suffering from, for example, sores over the skin, including the mouth, eyes, scalp and genitals; where it can prevent a bit of pneumonia, sight and hearing damage, and a bit of brain damage.

She also refuses to accept that the best way not to suffer the effects of a disease is not to catch it. Crumbledwalnuts, I gather you do accept that, though.

Still struggling for an answer to my question PigletJohn? You don't mind me repeating it, I hope, as it's something you seem quite keen on yourself? If you don't like me asking you because you can't answer and it's a bit embarrassing, just ask me to stop and I'll do so straight away.

I think you and I can agree, Crumbledwalnuts, that just as the best way to avoid the effects of a disease is not to catch it, the best way to avoid the effects of vaccine especially including the protection from disease is not to take it.

Can we also agree that the best way not to catch a disease is to be vaccinated against it, or do you know a better way?

"especially including the protection from disease" - that doesn't count as fog and verbosity?

So I can say "the best way to avoid the effects of measles is not to catch it, especially not as an adult when complications are much worse? and the best way to a void that is to gain lifelong immunity as a child"?

Or do you count the number of words? Or is it just words you disagree with that count as fog?

"Can we also agree that the best way not to catch a disease is to be vaccinated against it"

No, I can't agree with you about that. But I won't explain why or I'll be accused of fog and verbosity. Simple question - simple answer.

We could add this too:

"The best way to avoid the effects of vaccine especially including the protection from disease which may wane over and unknown amount of time and may not exist in the first place is not to take it."

Not sure though - I think you only like one kind of fog and it's a kind of fog I find interesting to slice through.

So I can say "the best way to avoid the effects of measles is not to catch it, especially not as an adult when complications are much worse? and the best way to a void that is to gain lifelong immunity as a child

No that doesn't make sense, because you are saying that the best way to avoid the effects of a disease is to catch it, which I am sure is the reverse of the truth.

The best way to not catch a disease as an adult is to have guaranteed immunity.

The best way to have guaranteed immunity is to catch the disease as a child.

Voila!

The best way to suffer the effects of a disease is to catch it

The best way to suffer the effects of a disease as a child is to catch it as a child

Prior to 1968, how many UK children died of measles in a typical year?

BTW, why don't you like to refer to the measles epidemic in South Wales as an epidemic?

Because so many of the cases weren't confirmed. Not just weren't sent off to the labs - were sent off to the labs and were not confirmed as measles by the labs.

Both my statements are true Piglet.

So are yours. So is this.

The most severe complications are usually suffered by adults. The best way to avoid catching it as an adult is to have guaranteed immunity. The best way to have guaranteed immunity is to catch it as a child.

Whatever shall we do? Is it perhaps a bit more complicated than you tried to make out?

If you want to find out about disease complication and death before vaccination all you have to do is look at the "fog" (or as I like to call it, data and information) earlier up thread.

We're dealing with simple and clear here. Aren't we?

Well hi again everyone. Good to meet you, crumbled! Biddy, are you still here, and which one are you now? (I am referring to your previous post:)

Oh dear, name-change-back fail. I think you know who I was previously - clue, it's not PigletJohn

I want biddy back because I'm afraid Piglet and wearsmink are not very informative and aren't really taking us anywhere. They keep misrepresenting the arguments or repeating statements that have already been addressed, or, in the case of wearsmink in particular, stating that 'someone else' will have to come up with the data for her (before announcing her view that all kids must be forcibly vaccinated before attending school). So, even it's actually one of you that's biddy, could you go back to your more eloquent alter ego please? :)

Piglet, have you not bothered to read any of the previous posts, or are you just being naughty here:

I am amazed that anyone refuses to accept that the best way not to suffer the effects of a disease is not to catch it.

For it was quite a few posts ago that I said, in response to your earlier iteration of this rather facile statement:

The best way to avoid all symptoms associated with measles is never to catch it. Of course. This is clear to everyone. You are not proving me wrong by making an obvious statement which I and everyone else agrees with.

Please scroll up to Sat 25th May to see how the argument then develops. I could copy and paste it here but I fear the resulting 'verbosity' would mean you (and especially wearsmink) might ignore this current post completely!

Similarly,piglet, you are either being naughty here, or you are genuinely not grasping what is important in this debate:

No that doesn't make sense, because you are saying that the best way to avoid the effects of a disease is to catch it, which I am sure is the reverse of the truth.

As I have said earlier, creating a caricatured opposition by simplifying, modifying or falsifying their statements makes it easy to defeat your fantasy version of their arguments. But it isn't the same as refuting what they have actually said. At the risk of being too verbose for everyone, I will suggest we need to allow a little more nuance in our thinking here. You see, there are shades of grey which are very important when taking decisions about your child's health.

'Effects' (ie symptoms) of a disease may well be an acceptable price to pay if you recover from them and obtain lifetime immunity and other health benefits for you and your breastfeeding baby as a result. You need to know though, whether the effects are most likely to be of this nature, or whether they are likely to be severe. For well-nourished children, I put it to you that they are much more likely to be of the former variety. Shall I quote the WHO statement again? Oh go on then:

Severe complications from measles can be avoided though supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution

Now, you may think it is worth taking the known and recognised unknown risks associated with a vaccine in order to provide unguaranteed 'immunity', for an unguaranteed period of time, against what you consider to be the risks for your child. That's fine and I think your right to choose should be protected. If I were a mother in a war ravaged country with no access to good nutrition or sanitation, and measles were rife, I might take the risks in the hope that my child might get the unguaranteed protection (which he might) against severe complications like brain damage, pneumonia, etc. I would then have to ensure he or she had boosters throughout his life though, and I would still worry that he or she could still catch it, and that even if she didn't, her breastfeeding baby wouldn't get antibodies and might be in danger. I would also still worry about all the known and recognised unproven effects of vaccine ingredients. In this situation, how I would wish that we had had access to good nutrition instead! Then, severe complications could be avoided, and I would only have to look after my child properly while he was temporarily afflicted by "sores over the skin, including the mouth, eyes, scalp and genitals" as you put it.

Now let's look at this:

Prior to 1968, how many UK children died of measles in a typical year?

Could you or wearsmink please comment on the graph I provided above?
Here's the link again:

www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/measlesChart.jpg

You can see from this chart that the death rate was already experiencing a massive decline before the vaccine was introduced in 1968, and that the vaccine did not affect this decline. Why was this so? One way to explain it could be because standards of nutrition and sanitation were improving for the poorest people during this time, and they were doubtless the most affected by the severe complications. That is not saying that prior to the decline, everyone in England lived as they do in some developing countries now. It is saying, however, that before the advent of the welfare state and other improvements in the standard of living for the poorest, some people did live without access to good nutrition or sanitation. If you know anything about England's history in the 19th and early 20th centuries, you'll know this is not a far-fetched claim.

wearsmink, what did you think of my assessment of the reasonable grounds for doubt on the claim that vaccination can produce reliable herd immunity?

Piglet, on to this comment:

BTW, why don't you like to refer to the measles epidemic in South Wales as an epidemic?

Surely the important questions, in the light of the OP and all the conversation which has transpired since, are:

1. How many people who were affected by this outbreak of measles (and who passed it to others) were vaccinated?
2. How many well-nourished children who got the disease suffered severe complications?
3. Of the thousands of children taken to be vaccinated by their worried parents, how many will receive guaranteed immunity for a guaranteed period of time? How many will be vulnerable to still catching the disease as adults, when it will be much more dangerous for them?
4. How many of these children will suffer the known side effects associated with vaccines?
5. How many will suffer possible side effects related to cancer, the brain or other organs, from injecting all the ingredients of the MMR jab straight into their bloodstreams - (can you be completely accurate about this please)?

I'm genuinely keen to know the answers to these questions- I hope you can help.

By the way, I appreciate this thread is mainly about measles. But did you have any comment about the 60+ Nigerian children paralysed by the polio vaccine since 2005, or the peer reviewed research in India showing strong correlation between polio vaccine doses and paralysis in children? Should parents be allowed to choose (which is my main point) in these types of circumstances? Please scroll up for references.

what a verbose post

"This is clear to everyone"
Except fascicle, who refuses to accept it.

"polio"
more fog on the measles thread

"repeating statements"
like the idea that measles doesn't matter because nutrition will cope with it

Piglet
fascicle said that in her opinion, vaccination is only of value where mortality rates are extremely high

(my bold). Piglet, you've added words which a) I didn't say b) change the meaning of my response.

You've also avoided answering my questions about how you feel about Chickenpox, which can be fatal, but is currently not included in the immunisation programme, and your views on the importance of other causes of mortality.

Piglet, I believe it's a question of individuals making their own choices (which for me meant researching the available literature, doing a risk/benefits exercise, and making a decision based on that).

I accept and expect other people to have views that are different to mine, but are still valid. Why you persist in expecting everybody to share your opinion, based on a two line mantra ('the best way' etc), which you believe is fact and are unwilling to substantiate, is beyond me!

I asked you

"Do you think there are any upsides to the vaccination process?"

you replied

"I think it has value where mortality rates are extremely high, and for anyone who believes it is the best option for protecting their child."

the opinions of "anyone" are not in question.

I prompted you

"so not where mortality rates are low, average, or fairly high, then? Not where it can prevent suffering from, for example, sores over the skin, including the mouth, eyes, scalp and genitals; not where it can prevent a bit of pneumonia, sight and hearing damage, and a bit of brain damage?"

And you do not share my view that it of value there as well. So the only conditions where you have said you think vaccination is of value is where mortality rates are extremely high. I have mentioned this because I find it shocking.

bobbyperu Shall I quote the WHO statement again? Oh go on then:

(quotes a very brief cherry-picked sentence from www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ which also says:

Key facts
Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.

In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally ? about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.

More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.

Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.

In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services ? up from 72% in 2000.