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

It was an interesting experience to participate in this discussion. But I do not want to carry on. People might look at me as a loony from a different planet and actually they might be right. I live in a world and reality which seems to be quite different from most people's world as there is no need for fear of any illness anymore.

As I mentioned in the beginning. We all have the choice. I chose the path of self-responsibility, freedom of fear and dependency on greedy systems and I'm happy that this path has brought me to an incredible abundance and potential concerning ways of healing. To me the existing medical model therefore seems like a system from the past millenium or from a different planet and compared with what is possible today it seems rather clumsy and complicated. So I will not challenge other people's belief systems anymore. Each of us has to learn from our own experiences.

Bubbleymummy it was erradicated in australia and new zealand because the cases tended to be imported by people arriving by boats and they were quarrentined and anyone who had contact were vaccinated. This prevented smallpox from spreading into australia. Vaccination played a large role in the erradication in those countries as well.

I think the conclusion is that certain people find it easy to engage with, scorn and ridicule people who have more unusual views - easy targets, in other words.

However: just to pick up on : if a children is said to regress on teh day of or within a couple of days of the MMR, then "knowing a little biology" that cannot have been due to the MMR then".

Certainly a child could react within a couple of days - possibly from other vaccine ingredients. If regression is the "outcome" of the reaction, two or three weeks later, then falling ill within days or hours of the vaccine could be described as an "immediate regression" by the parents. Do not dismiss parents'reports so easily. Illness can mimic regression, as anyone with a child knows: and if the end result is, very sadly, permanent regression, then some parents will naturally say - "the regression began the day after the vaccination".

I think you must know this: you know there are immediate reactions that can cause children to fall ill or feel poorly. I don't know if you are being deliberately or accidentally misleading. I do know that you are being misleading, despite "knowing a little biology".

Excellent point Bruffin. I'm afraid Bubbley not stats queen because sometimes she reads statistical tables and gets numbers 1000 times wrong. (you know those tables where it says x1000 at the top instead of filling up the page with zeros. makes a difference...)
There are several viral diseases which can lead to secondary infections in which antibiotics can help. The antibiotics may stop you dying of the disease but they will not stop you catching it. So this is a red herring. Doesn't matter which strain of smallpox - they are all now extinct. Another red herring. Nothing to do with diet, water, drugs etc. All herrings as well.

It was vaccination that got rid of smallpox in rich countries and poor and no matter how many buckets of red herrings you try to throw at this fact, they will not make it any less true. It is also vaccination that has eliminated polio from many countries both rich and poor.
I think the vaccine refusers sometimes take the moral high ground and use value laden language. There are several interesting examples above.

Bubbley is indeed stats queen she knows what she is talking about.

Other stats have also been mentioned involving low vaccine coverage and outbreaks after vaccination. As I say, you don't have to express an interest and you haven't - but there we are. Unless you count dismissing the very idea as a "red herring".

I hardly think you are in a position to question "value laden language" when it is most heavily used on the pro-vaccine side: and when you use very definitive terms, claiming facts where there is muddy ground, "fallaciousness" accompanied by very silly claims yourself and so on. In fact you haven't addressed the post which dealt with one particular claim which does seem quite extraordinary.

I don't see anyone taking the "moral high ground". What examples do you have.

Stats queen - you are joking Gooseberry. There is no point in quoting stats if you don't understand the underlying reason for them.

I agree, but I think she does, very much so

Sorry gooseberry - she really doesn't. Things have to be explained to her time and time again. Simple things like why herd immunity can fail and then she goes repeating the same old nonsense again and again.

Actually I recall her explaining very simple figures to you on previous threads which you didn't seem able to understand at all.

I absolutely agree with her about herd immunity: her maths is good there.

However this is not about how put out you chaps are having somebody praised and it's not you

Actually I can remember a herd immunity conversation with you which you struggled to grasp. Also those figures in some of the epidemiological studies.

There's plenty I find difficult in this field: some of the detailed papers which Beachcomber and jimjams have talked about have me boggling. But then, I don't mind saying so at all.

Whereas having people claim to be absolutely right, and to question that view is nonsense, and wrong, and so on: I must say you give yourselves a lot to live up to, and to say you don't always manage it is rather an understatement.

Oh FFS not this again. Vaccines are basically THE SAFEST medical treatments there are.

So get yours while you can, or take your chances with 'natural selection' and survival of the fittest. lol.

Lol away at vaccine damage all you like Limbo. No one will ever take you seriously while you do.

You'd get damaged by the disease, thats for sure.

It's not for sure at all. I wasn't. Neither were thousands upon thousands upon millions of people. So you can't say that, at least.

Whereas Vaccines are tested to the highest standards.
They must meet safety levels which are higher than for any other drug or treatment.

This is because they are given to healthy people on a large scale. So if they are not extremely safe, it is not worth the risk of giving it to so many people. Makes sense, see?

Do you understand the kind of damage that the diseases cause Gooseb? If you did, you would not be so flippant.

"Whereas Vaccines are tested to the highest standards."

No they aren't. Testing on MMR was "inadequate". (Cochrane)

"They must meet safety levels which are higher than for any other drug or treatment."

No they don't.

"So if they are not extremely safe, it is not worth the risk of giving it to so many people. Makes sense, see?"

It makes no difference to the manufacturer if it makes people unwell so long as so link is established.

I am not flippant. Do you know what flippant means?

You are flippant. Very much so.

Yes, I understand these things: I don't think you understand the issue of vaccine damage or disease morbidity. Otherwise you certainly would not be flippant, with your ffs-ing and your shouting.

As I've always understood it, vaccines are not safety tested as much as medicines. Why did the OPV give some people Polio? Why did the whooping cough jab gave some children brain damage? Vaccines should not be damaging healthy people, surely?

I obviously made the right decision, then.

Tabitha

As I've always understood it, vaccines are not safety tested as much as medicines.

Not sure where you get that from. Vaccines are tested very rigorously.

Why did the OPV give some people Polio?

Because it is a live viral vaccine and in some very rare cases, it reverted (mutated back) to be more virulent.

Why did the whooping cough jab gave some children brain damage?

It didn't

Vaccines should not be damaging healthy people, surely?

Ideally no. In some rare instances they do.

To those of you who are arguing against vaccination.
Are you suggesting that we stop vaccinating at all?
Consider this very real apocalyptic scenario.

If an epidemic a Spanish flu was spreading and as you watch BBC news u can see the death toll rising. Bearing in mind that Spanish flu affects and can kill you fit people.
Would u take a vaccine if it was offered?
What about if the health authorities told you there may be mild side effects from the jab?
As you look round about you, more and more people are contracting the virus and deteriorating to their death.
What if the risk of death from anaphylaxis was 2% (significantly more than most current vaccines)
Would you take it then? Or would you continue to argue the point that vaccines are ineffective and cause more damage than they fix.
Would you want it for ur children? Or would you take ur chances with Darwin and hope for the best?

Vaccines save lives and are effective and when faced with the reality of Amy deadly epidemic we would all be fighting tooth and nail for anything to protect ourselves and our families.

wiki on whooping cough and the vaccine

PIMS - I can see where you're coming from. However, that doesn't mean I should vaccinate my child against everything or follow the vaccination schedule the government sets out. It's not an either/or for everyone.

• We were all warned about the deadly epidemic of swine flu, which completely failed to materialise. Should we always believe the news, doctors etc or should we think for ourselves a bit and make our own decisions?

Some people labelled as "anti vax" are merely arguing for freedom of choice and self-responsibility. Some of those people vaccinate their children, at least partly.

From the HPA website:

Does the pertussis vaccine cause brain damage?

In 1974 a paper was published suggesting a link between the whooping cough vaccine and brain damage. Because of this concern, the number of children receiving the vaccine fell. As a consequence, the number of cases and deaths from the disease rose. Subsequent research shows that, if there is a long-term risk of brain damage from the vaccine, it is rare, whereas the disease itself is known to cause brain damage and death.

By the way, my point about the OPV jab causing polio in some people was meant as a comment that no one should have developed polio from a jab.

illuminasam - where did you get the idea from that swine flu was not deadly or that it failed to materialise?
A lot of people died, many of them young. For example from June 26, 2009, to March 22, 2010 70 children died in the UK along with a number from other age groups. And the deaths continue to mount since then. Sounds rather deadly to me. So I don't think this is an example of us being misled by "news, doctors etc".