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

lg - oh dear, I am sorry. My brother had it as well at about the same age. Barely put him in bed, although he was off school for a bit.

Serious "for some" would be more truthful, no?

I'm not blase. I just think perspective on some of these issues is well out of whack.

If my son caught mumps I would be sympathetic but hardly overly worried.

The alleged association between MMR, enterocolitis, and autism was first reported in a 1998 study of 12 children that suggested a link between recent injection of MMR vaccine and the onset of symptoms of autism and enterocolitis [9]. However, by comparing the case descriptions in the paper with medical records, an investigative reporter found that the study was fraudulent [26]. Three of the children did not have autism; five had developmental concerns before MMR vaccination; behavioral symptoms developed in some children months (rather than days) after MMR vaccination; and colonoscopy results were altered from unremarkable findings to ?nonspecific colitis? after ?research review.? In addition, patients were recruited through an anti-MMR organization and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation. Ten of the 13 authors of the study published a statement retracting its interpretation in 2004, and the Lancet fully retracted the paper in 2010

Pims,

It is amazing how often that flawed, discredited paper is still cited as evidence by the anti vaccine lobby.

I know
Im really struggling to see ANY positives in that paper. Its spellin was better than mine :)

and can I just say the only other paper that Wakefield wrote suggesting a link between measles and persistent inflammatory colitis with regression autism failed to report if ANY of the subjects had actually HAD an MMR, their problems could have been caused by natural disease!!!!

"seeker, blackmailing and spreading fear does not work with me anymore"

Pleased to hear it, Rosi7.

But how is that relevant?

PIMS - can I ask - are you getting all your info from Brian Deer again?

I will return and answer your points, but am out for the rest of today. if this thread is full by the time I get back, i will start another to address your ludicrous points (some of which I actually addressed earlier re: difference between CDD and ASD) concerning the lancet 12.

The info is from the trial transcript, the gmc official report into Andrews dismissal, Brian deer and a few other references that I posted.
The paper is NOT credible or VALID.
I will happily read ur replies, but please let GB post first as she claims to have all the information that can discount my facts and in looking forward to reading them

just quickly - am running late - that would be the gmc trial which was based on Deer's (erroneoud) reporting, which ignored the evidence which highlighted his lies, the gmc report based on the tril which ignred the evidence of lies, Deer's reports which, um, were full of lies (easily proved), etc etc?

honestly, please do read behind the lies from Deer (and reports which are based on his lies...)

the points you have made re: the lancet 12 are easily disproved.

I have a great deal of respect for you silverfrog. I think ur replys are considered and well substantiated even if I don't agree with the content you at least try to be objective and balanced.

GB is emotional, and her posts are full of stamping and head banging and eye rolling and personal slander.
The information she shares is opinionated and lacks substance and integrity. It is obvious that she copies most of her answers from you, but failes to apply them in the correct context.
I believe that's what makes her dangerous to the lay reader. She lacks the ability to be objective and balanced and responds with emotion and personal insults when someone disagrees with her.
A bully by any other name.

sorry, do not see the relevance between your last post and mine.

can I just ask - why do you think Deer, a journalist, is qualified to comment on chidlren's medical records, and interpret them? (and make up facts to sit whatever piece he is writing...)

I'll be interested to hear how they are easily disproved when the lancet and the 10 other authors agreed that the findings of the paper were flawed.
I commend your enthusiasm but this really is flogging a dead horse.

I refer back to the problems with wakefeilds other paper witch could prove a link between measles itself and his 'syndrome'

The interpretation of the reports was from the findings of the medical panel that reviewed the cases, not Brian deer

I do not believe that this is a a cover up or a conspiracy.
I believe the facts as they were presented in a court of law. And that post was relevant as I asked you to let GB answer this and prove she is more than an opinionated poster without ANY substance

bruffin, you have not read the thread. There are two different results. And the official one whiche you believe is true has been co-financed by pharmaceutical industry. A very trustworthy result of course. No doubt about that.

All of your quotes Pims, do not prove that vaccinated people are healthier than those not vaccinated.

"All of your quotes Pims, do not prove that vaccinated people are healthier than those not vaccinated."

They aren't. They are just significantly less likely to get the specific disease they have been vaccinated against.

It does if the ones who have been vaccinated have not died or developed learning difficulties.... Please read them again

how do you know, seeker? Is that an assumption. or what you believe?

So you mean the fact that they have not died is linked with having been vaccinated? How do you know that this was the cause? And not something else?

No. It's not an assumption or a belief. It's a fact. I don;t understand why you won't answer my question about whether you would trust your child's immune system to protect her from cholera.

Oh, and while you're answering that, please could you say whether or not you think tht bacteria and viruses cause disease.

You claim it is a fact as others claim it is a fact that mmr caused brain damage in their child. I can't see that your claim has more substance at all.

mmr vacc I mean

these are the recognised side effects of the MMR vaccine

10%:

Central nervous system: Fever ≥38.9˚C (≥102˚F) (22%)

Local: Injection site reaction: Pain/tenderness/soreness (22%), erythema (14%)

1% to 10%:

Central nervous system: Irritability (7%)

Dermatologic: Measles-like rash (3%), varicella-like rash (2%), rash (2%), viral exanthema (1%)

Gastrointestinal: Diarrhea (1%)

Local: Injection site reaction: Swelling (8%), bruising (2%)

Respiratory: Upper respiratory tract infection (1%)