Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

According to my Halvorsen book, it was 2004!! Staggering if true.

oh, and no emotionally fuelled posts form me, bumbley, tabitha.

gooseberry does get a little irate at times (with good reason, imo), but even so her posts are easy enough to follow.

please try to keep up.

that is shocking, tabitha. blimey.

mind you, why I would be shocked by anythign about the uk vaccine schedule I don't know. the more I read (and experience, with my girls), the more it terrifies me, tbh

Silverfrog, I will post my opinion of his investigation, but first I am struggling to see where the lancet said the original study was based on good science and should be considered in it's own merit

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext%23article_upsell

read the gmc trial transcriptions.

they are very interesting, and highlight exactly why the verdict was nonsense.

it was said at the trial, by a witness for the prosecution (even the prosecution could not find fault with the science as written in the paper!)

Well now Pims you really are talking utter bilge

and silver's "ok" was certainly a response not to the untruth you seem to be using like a crutch -"his study is VOID, VOID I tell ya - VOID"

you are wholly and completely prejudiced about this

robust of opinion and equally ill-informed

@ a little irate

and I started off so nicely

although seriuosly to bublly tabitha you of course and all other generally calm sorts - I do really apologise if I let the side down with intemperance

Will do silverfrog, but afraid I'll have to sign off for a wee while to do so!
GB, find something constructive to say. I am more than happy to be reasonable if ask direct questions and stop being soo personal in your responses

Where do I find those trial transcripts?

All 217 days of them!!

Ah, I see.

"that is really not my take on events."

well that's kinda the way it is

Furthermore, the crux of my argument is about weighing up risk versus benefit, not about the the intricacies of Andrew Wakfields rise and political downfall.

it is now, because you were shown to be totally wrong and can't think what to say

however I'd like to know how you're supposed to weigh up a risk when you don't know what it is yet -- what with all those panels of experts needing to investigate parental opinions and so on

His evidence IS VOID.

hey don't cry and stamp your feet - you're wrong (see silver's many, many, many posts) but better people than you have made the same mistake - get over it

ha everything I said was helpful, snot my fault if you lack the capacity to make the most of it

GB, grow up! I am reading the evidence other posters have asked me to consider before I give an honest answer.
This is not a game, it's not about proving me wrong, as personally satisfying as I'm sure ud find this.
It's about objectively examining the evidence on both sides.
I stand by all my original posts.

I really don't appreciate that you continue to slander and slag my posts even when I say that I'm off to read some more of the information as suggested by your fellow posters.

You really are not doing your 'cause' any favours and are just making urself look bad!

And for the record, just saying that everything I wrote is untrue doesn't make it soo, no matter how hard you click your ruby slippers or wave your magic wand.
You are living in a fantasy land and I have so much more respect for silverfrog and tabs for keeping to the point and being objective from their own side.

I swear you are just trying to wind me up so I stop posting and you can say ... Oh she must be wrong!
I have news for u, I will continue to read all the evidence you ask me too, I will objectively examine the evidence and I will give a relevant opinion if I can when asked

So please, let's make this a fair debate

you are accusing everyone of being emotional, you came on here with some kind of silly pretence, you started being heavily sarcastic, and I'm not going back - but there were these silly statements - "there's just NO link" and NO evidence which is quite frankly insulting, patronising and pretty ignorant

and by the way - it's not that I disagree with you, or that what you say isn't true

it's the all the things you say can't be true at the same time

you have have opinion A, or opinion B, but when they contradict each other - you can't have both

good luck with the reading - hope you work it out

I have never said there is NO link
Please read my posts
And stop being snide, you are not doing your arguments any favours.

I have said on a number of occasions that the science is to weak to prove a causal link.
A statement you supported

If you could keep ur answer succinct and drop the sarcasm and personal insults it would be much appreciated

Yes you did - "looking for something that doesn't exist" plus at least one other comment which I can't remember and am not looking back for

however if you want to withdraw that and acknowledge there may be a link between MMR and autistic disorder that's fine with me

And putting something in quotation marks doesn't mean I said it.
I have never said there is no link
I have said on a number of occasions there IS a link, but the science is too weak to confirm that it is in anyway causal

Don't misquote me

oh yes you said

"the link is not causal"

so there you have it

you are misquoting yourself

you said

"the link is not causal"

and

"something that doesn't exist"

did you make a mistake - did you mean to say something different?

GB, have you actually read any of my posts at all?
I also pointed out that there is a link between the number of ice cream consumed and the number of deaths from sea drowning, but one does not CAUSE the other.
Please take the time to read my posts before accusing me of 'not having the capacity' to keep up with yours

Do you understand the difference between correlations and causal relationships, it looks like you are struggling to get this

er yes I have read them

have you?

I know you haven't read mine if you're still talking about the ice cream thing

but to discover you haven't even read your own - that's tedious