Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Debate on Vaccines

1000 replies

Emsyboo · 27/06/2011 14:18

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

OP posts:
seeker · 20/07/2011 14:12

"Seeker, if you have read what I have written in the past you will know the answer."

How bizarre! So I have to trawl through your posting history to find the answer!

Goosberrybushes - please could you address PIMS post about the Wakefield report?

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 14:13

and if you could be a love and read through the long list of references I gave you to support my point it would be great!

Just because you cant be bothered linking doesnt really cut it for me Im afraid

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 14:14

the same records that the GMC group reported on with the findings AS I POSTED
amazing! I thought that a panel of 5 experts would be pretty thorough
enjoy playing with your kids

seeker · 20/07/2011 14:16

Sorry, goosberrybushes, please could you state your sources for your comments ont eh children in the Wakefield case study?

Oh, and not, he didn;t pay children for blood tests - he just happened to give each o them 5 pounds completelyl coincidentally.

Gooseberrybushes · 20/07/2011 14:20

Don't be ridiculous - nothing cuts it for you. Your prejudice is absolute.

You arrived pretending to be something you're not - I can't imagine why. Very dishonest. Probably an attempt to score points- that would be typical pro-vaccine behaviour.

Didn't work - so now you've had to come out in your day job, probably as a pharmaceutical researcher or possibly just someone who spends all day on brian deer's website. Certainly a pro-vaccine absolutist. Certainly someone who ignores anything of any cogency and moves on to something else headline grabbing and dubious.

And to think I wasted this time on you and am about to waste more.

As I say - I'm off to be with the children and I'll come back later about the other children in the study.

Gooseberrybushes · 20/07/2011 14:21

Seeker - not only do you not read links, you don't read any posts it seems

seeker · 20/07/2011 14:24

Oh, I must have missed where you gave citations for your comments on the children in the Wakefield study. Sorry.

seeker · 20/07/2011 14:26

Nope - didn;t miss it - you must have forgotten to put it in.

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 14:28

A conclusion for me

I have considered all the evidence that has been discussed and there have been some interesting points.

I have demonstrated clear benefits to vaccinations and also the risks associated with not vaccinating. (i have given the information simply for MMR, but would be happy to look at other diseases)
I have also presented evidence as to why the only two scientific papers that suggest a link between MMR and autsim are not valid and have backed this up with a number of medical sources. I have also given some good references that support that there is no causal link between the two and that they should be treated separately
I have acknowledge that no medical treatment is risk free and vaccination does carry some risk. I detailed the known potential adverse events and their probability for MMR

In conclusion, I have said on a number of occasions that every vaccination decision should be made as an informed decision where parents are able to weigh up all the evidence. I would never tell someone to do particularly on an internet forum. I can provide objective information so that they can make up their own mind

I think it is important that when we consider evidence, we can only consider credible published evidence. To not do this would set a very dangerous president where we find ourselves falling into bad practice that is far from evidenced based.

We should continue to be vigilant and concerns should be raised and investigated through the appropriate channels. (in this country that is the yellow card system which ANYONE can do via the online British NAtional Formulary)

I am sure that some will continue to questions my conclusions, but I am quite comfortable that all the information needed to do so is contained,linked, evidenced and reference in this thread

Gooseberrybushes · 20/07/2011 15:35

Can I just say: PIMS - you are engaging in trollery on a thread involving vaccine damage and sometimes, the parents of damaged children. Yes, I have reported you for trolling behaviour.

Seeker: you are engaged in classic bullying behaviour. Disappearing when you are non-plussed, because you can't stand up for yourself, and coming back with sarcasm and sniping when you think you can egg someone else on.

Smile

A conclusion for me is that many pro-vaccinists do not understand their own stance. They do not understand how absolutist they are on MMR: and how that absolutism results from their views in the wider vaccine debate. They allow their views on vaccines generally to affect their views on MMR.

In reality: the MMR link stands alone to be proved or disproved. The pro-vaccine lobby would like to attach it to the general vaccine debate.

This is because the entire vaccine icon teeters, at present, on the MMR question. If only one case is admitted of MMR-autism in a "normal" child, the floodgates will open.

No one will trust governments or pharmaceuticals on the issue of vaccines, vaccine take up will plummet, compensation will almost bankrupt producers. If Wakefield is allowed any credibility at all, the absolutist stance - "NO" link at all - of the pro-vaccine brigade will be profoundly undermined.

This is why the "no link" stance is so fiercely defended, although it is not proved, although the evidence shows otherwise, this is why trolls and bullies appear on these threads. The last one, for example, had people posting "amusing" videos of a vaccine damaged child and comedy poems rhyming "ballistic" with "autistic".

The reports I gave all came from neurologists and doctors' reports all FULLY ACKNOWLEDGED by Wakefield before the study, during the study and when reporting his findings. I will have to look up the rest but I am confident the pattern will continue.

I'm leaving the thread: indeed, leaving MN. So now I can say this with impunity: it's partly because of the bullying, mainly because of the sheer callousness of posters on this particular board, and partly because I've realised that I'm spending time arguing with some rather stupid people that I wouldn't waste a moment on in real life. So basically - I need to go and get a life.

Good luck and best wishes to silver, Tabitha, Beachcomber, pag and bubbley in efforts regarding familes and wider issues. And rosi too, though I can't say I read much of yours but your energy is quite something Smile

Tabitha8 · 20/07/2011 15:42

GB Good point about no one trusting gov'ts etc on this issue.
Why? Well, for example:
PIMS posted info while back about doses required for MMR. It used to be one. Then two. Now three??

Larry If I come with you to that imaginary place with all those diseases for which I've never been vaccinated, how many jabs would I need for each to be sure of complete safety?
PIMS Do you think it now time to take the polio jab out of our schedule? (I know it is combined with others at present).

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 15:42

Good luck with your reading

PO

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 15:44

Tabs

I honestly dont know the answer to that, but more than happy to look into it. Will get back to you if thats ok?

Gooseberrybushes · 20/07/2011 15:44

I assume that means piss off.

You are a troll. On a thread involving conversations about vaccine damage.

Are you proud of that?

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 15:51

No it means good luck with your reading

I am not a troll
MN advises that you dont make such accusations.

The thread is about vaccine debate. Pleas dont try and go for they sympathy vote as a parting blow!
None of your posts or that of you fellow posters have said that you have children that were vaccine damaged. If they are, I am deeply sympathetic. It does not change how I feel or the conclusions I made
I am not being horrible, I am being realistic.
I lost a friend to cervical cancer caused by a strain that could have been prevented by a vaccine. This works both ways

Vaccine damage is a really broad term and in my conclusion I accepted that vaccines like all medications carry risk. The risk has to be weighed with the benefit in every case.

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 15:56

I am proud that I can say that I have kept my integrity and stuck to the facts.
I have open mindedly considered others views and have agreed with other posters where they have made good points and reasonable suggestions.

I have never pulled faces, stamped my feet, rolled by eyes, banged my head against a wall.

I have never stormed off and huffed because I didnt like what I was hearing (and that has occurred on plenty of occasions)
I have never used any swearing and have never claimed to be an absolutist 'pro vacciner'

I believe in informed choice. The decision has to be made responsibly with ALL the correct information. Not retracted evidence or opinion, but fact. This fact includes accepting that all vaccines carry a known risk and a known benefit.

larrygrylls · 20/07/2011 16:57

Gooseberry,

You do passive aggressive really well.

This thread is about the pros and cons of vaccine, not just MMR, much as you would like to define it as such. This thread may well have parents of it of autistic children that they believe to have been damaged by vaccines. On the other hand, it may also have parents of children who caught measles and mumps in infancy and either died or were permanently damaged due to the selfishness of the anti vaccine brigade. Are you proud of your callous disregard of their feelings?

There is no such thing as an organised "pro vaccine" lobby amongst most parents, just those that have read enough of the science of vaccines and seen what affect serious infectious diseases can have on children. On the other hand, those anti-vaccine seem to want to conflate mercury poisoning with mitochondrial DNA defects and (theoretical) damage that the measles virus (even in vaccine form) can do to the gut. If the anti MMR brigade would at least say unequivocally that other vaccines are probably harmless and should be taken up, then I would have fewer issues.

Gooseberry,

"No one will trust governments or pharmaceuticals on the issue of vaccines, vaccine take up will plummet, compensation will almost bankrupt producers. If Wakefield is allowed any credibility at all, the absolutist stance - "NO" link at all - of the pro-vaccine brigade will be profoundly undermined."

You sound like the above would actually be desirable. Back to the days of my parent's generation where at least a couple of children they started school with never finished as they had died of one of the then common childhood illnesses.

Tabitha8 · 20/07/2011 17:05

Selfishness of the anti-vaccine brigade.
So, Larry all vaccines are completely safe and there is, therefore, absolutely no reason whatsoever not to have them?
On the other hand, if there are risks with jab(s), then is it not up to the parents to decide if we wish to take those risk(s) with OUR children? That's right. MY child.
Don't forget my question about that island.

larrygrylls · 20/07/2011 17:12

What question about an island? Have been in and out, looking after my children, working from home, must have missed that one.

Can we all decide on behalf of our own children whether they wear a seat belt, for instance, or whether they are allowed to lob bricks from a high window? For a society to function, we have to pull together collectively to help one another and ourselves. Your perfectly healthy child may well be (ever so marginally) better off unvaccinated (though I do not personally believe it) but when he is recovering from his mumps and infects someone else's newborn who then goes deaf, he (well, you, as his parent) are acting selfishly and irresponsibly.

Tabitha8 · 20/07/2011 17:13

PIMS Will wait to hear from you on polio. I think that the WHO declared Europe a polio-free area in 2002.

Tabitha8 · 20/07/2011 17:17

Bricks throwing = criminal behaviour. Daft example.
Do you know what? I just so do not care if you think me selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and guess what else? I'm NOT part of any anti-vaccine lobby.
My question about an island - you invited us to go somewhere with various diseases present. I asked how many jabs I'd need to guarantee protection from those diseases. I think you mentioned yellow fever and cholera for starters.

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 17:36

If you have HIV/AIDs and knowingly infect someone who is unaware of the risk that also constitutes criminality

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 17:37

Just a thoughts tabatha

Tabitha8 · 20/07/2011 17:40

I will never do anything to my child that I believe may cause him harm.
My reasons for not vaccinating are as stated in my first post on this thread.
Put simply, a complete lack of trust in the official line.
What about aluminium in childhood jabs? Is that not a serious concern?
For me, there are now too many jabs, too soon.

PIMSoclock · 20/07/2011 17:48

Thermerosal is no longer used in vaccines for the under 6's

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread