This illustrates why your vaccine choice matters to the rest of us

[CatherinaJTV]

one family's vaccine refusal killed one, another child, infected by the same unvaccinated pre-teen is still dying (since 2005):

justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/10/so-predictable-so-sad-natalie-dies-of.html

In ds1's school there are children who have ended up there as a result of illnesses such as meningitis AND children who are there after vaccine reactions. His school takes the most severely learning disabled in the area. There are also children there as a result of botched births or genetics. Some of the chikdren die which is why the school has a memorial garden. If you think life is so black and white that unvaccinated children are murder weapons you've lived a very sheltered life indeed.

I think one of the reasons that term is so vile is because it implies intent.

To then go on and say 'I'm sure they didn't mean this outcome to happen' is stupid.

I'm amazed that there doesn't seem to be more info about these extraordinary cases - I have searched with various terms and can't find anything concrete. Perhaps it is all in German.

This story is very very odd indeed.

In fact the only info I can find is hysterical offensive people co-opting what has happened to these poor children, and making stupid and sick statements about these children being the 'victims of a pair of German anti-vaxxxxxxers'.

www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/bvkj/aktuelles1/show.php3?id=2836&nodeid=26

www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/bvkj/aktuelles1/show.php3?id=1517&nodeid=26&nodeid=26&query=sspe

This is Oxana, Micha's mum in a forum for disabled children
www.rehakids.de/phpBB2/ftopic6645.html

All of this is in German, you can google translate...

It seems to me that Catherine views children who are vaccine damaged as some kind of collateral damage - unimportant and not really 'real' children.

I found it interesting that her op uses 'your' and 'us'

Not 'why your vaccine choice matters to everyone' but 'to the rest of us'

She is upset that our unimportant children might affect those she deems as worthy and relevant, those whose parents vaccinate.

I suspect that is why her apology was mealy mouthed and why she won't retract the term 'murder weapon

Pag - your post is assuming that vaccine damage is accepted, of course.

I doubt it is. surely you know by now that parents make this stuff up? it's all coincidental, blah, blah, blah

I'm not suggesting that this extraordinary case is not true OP .

What I mean is that I'm surprised that there isn't some scientific investigation and discussion going on.

It would be interesting to read something scientific rather than something about anti-vaxxxxxxxxxxers. That's all.

at essay silverfrog.

I am hoping it is a small partof the course, Beach (which in turn is only a small part of further study)

have skipped ahead a little, and the whole autism/mmr subject seems to be glossed over nicely in a "some parents think that regression may be linked to mmr. however, autism becomes apparent around that age anyway, and so it is easy to confuse the two"

having had the pleasure of seeing an OU exercise on how Wakefield/mmr was handled, and reading the easily disproved lies contained within, I doubt that any actual thought or discussion is going to be sought - just regurgitating the somewhat dubious contents of the textbook.

That's the thing that gets me the 'facts' spouted about Wakefield can be easily shown to be erroneous with a 5 minute delve into the subject. That's without getting into anything particularly controversial. If people are that blinkered about something really easy to disprove (and that really shouldn't be controversial) ho blinkered are they over things that are more uncomfortable.

it is all spread so 'innocuously' though, isn't it?

eg the questions that come up at GCSE which have to be answered incorrectly to get the marks. the module I am doing now, which sets out in it's core text that the only link between mmr/autism is a coincidental one.

this stuff gets taught, and the majority of people have no reason to question it. why would a text book lie? why would exam questions be wrong? the whitewash begins young.

would you tell your children that?

when the difference in marks could mean not being able to carry on studying at eg A level (or then degree, or then professional studies etc)?

it is one thing to know you are being made to give answers to questions which include false information - what about people who do not even think to question it? (and why would people question it? it is not common, after all, to have to question the quality of information that is given to you as part of an educational course)

The GCSE stuff would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. It's so easy to pick kilometre long holes in it - even if you didn't believe in an mmr connection. It's just plain made up. Frightening stuff.

yes, saintly - it is terrifying.

leonie - exactly. you end up lying to get the marks, sadly. agree that you can tell them what they are writing is rubbish, potentially (I can foresee many arguments with dd2 over 'but that is what the teacher said' type stuff), but it still comes back to - what about the vast majority of people who do not even think to question it?

what about the fact that it is apparently no ok to drip feed propaganda nonsense into the national curriculum, and have it accepted a the true version of events, when it doesn't even make sense?

The whole GCSE science curriculum is an extraordinary can of worms.

At my dc's school, they are told that what they learn is wrong, but that they must regurgitate it to get their grades. At least the teachers are honest. And it's a good lesson in politics.