why do parents refuse their baby / childs vaccines?

[bethjoanne]

in the uk we are so lucky to have an nhs---- doctors ,nurses ,treatments and vaccines we should be so grateful.in third world countries babies /children die of terrible diseases and also our relatives eg great great great grandmas would have done anything to have their children vaccinated IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE DREAM TO HAVE AN NHS AND VACCINES, instead they had to witness their child suffer i dread to think what they went through.
what country you are born in is luck of the drawer.
we should be grateful for medical care and vaccines available to us and have our baby/ child vaccinated.
i cannot believe some parents are so selfish and ruthless putting others at risk and starting an epidemic what happened in history and other third world countries .when the nhs is here to help and protect us now.x
ps think about babies 0 day old to 15 months who are too young to be covered /vaccinated.10 babies have died recently from whooping cough.also there has been 2 well known footballers had meningitis recently so there is reported cases,surely this needs nipping in the bud .
why are parents still refusing to vaccinate?

Can I just point out the article on infant mortality Sdeuchers pointed to is complete nonsense.
Firstly it doesnt take into account that each country has different definitions of infant mortality.
In the US a child that takes a breath is considered to have lived and died, in other countries the definition is born after a certain number of weeks sometime up to 26 weeks, others countries go on weight or body length, others dont count a live birth if the baby dies within the first day.
There the US has a higher mortality rate as it is including children that had no chance of living for longer than a short time and wouldnt be registered as a live birth in other countries.
This also means that the author is not basing his calculations on vaccinated children but including children that didnt live long enough to have any vaccines let alone the full regime.

I think that's right crash doll. If I had a child was I thought was vaccine damaged, I'm not sure I'd vaccinate his or her sibling. People have many reasons for not choosing to vaccinate.

My problem is when the anti vaxers start with the conspiracy theories and misinformation. I think it was leonie who said no matter what evidence is placed in front of her, she'll never vaccinate. If someone put evidence in front of me that vaccines aren't safe, I certainly wouldn't vaccinate. The evidence should drive the decision, not the other way around!

pagwatch if you wish to drone from your soap box about inconsistencies in other people, you might set your own house straight first. You say you don't like the abrasive style of other posters, but your own posts are riddled with abuse. Your posts are also long on assumptions about people you don't know, and seem to be largely directed at straw-women. Where are these people saying that vaccinating is 'scary and complicated', and where are the posts abusing them for saying it?

My own view is that this is what most of the anti's actually think, but they're buggered if they're going to admit that they don't know what to think or who to trust. I get wound up by people claiming with great confidence to have researched and understood a topic which they clearly have not. If you built bridges for a living, and someone rolled up and said bridge builders have it all wrong, bridges should be made of salt, how would you respond? I respond to what people say, not to my best guess at their underlying psychology. You've thought a lot about why the pro's behave the way they do, but apparently not at all about why they get annoyed. Bad behaviour on forums is also complicated and never the fault of one side only.

Brycie, so you've read someone who has read Thomas Kuhn, and yes, science and scientists are far from perfect, but if you don't trust the science, how else are you supposed decide whether to vaccinate or not? Science is the least unreliable source of information for medical decisions.

I know bruffin! What am awful article. It'd never have made it into an epidemiological journal! For me the biggest problem was the lack of any confounding variables! We also know that in developed countries, infant mortality is dependent on a million other factors and vaccination would only change infant mortality by a small amount - its one of many factors.

But this is the problem, people bring out these articles without any kind of critical appraisal or nderstanding of research methods and say look! Vaccines increase mortality!

JotheHot, what I'm trying to say is, the very hectoring posts like your last one may be quite satisfrying to type, but I don't think they inch people forward in terms of making a vaccination decision you might approve of. I'm not sure it's really about bad behaviour, more about if you want people to pay attention in a positive way, what will achieve that. On your last point, that is linked. I think if you don't understand the levels of mistrust people have simply because of the plain fact that manufacturers are often guilty of distortion, you aren't going to get very far. As I said before, parents are not muppets (most parents anyway!) and even if you enjoy treating them like muppets, which some people obviously do! then it's not going to earn you people's attention in terms of your actual message.

Anyway I t6hink I will retire from this conversation as I've said what I wanted to. I'm really pleased that some people agree with me but I think it's a shame that the point I'm making does not seem to have got across in some ways. Goodnight all, wish you well

To be fair Brycie, the hectoring exists on both sides.

And i don't think the anti-vax folk posting are here to have their minds changed. They made up their minds a ling time ago.

I only post because I feel the need to counter balance the damage from the crankosphere. Otherwise it sounds like an equal debate when in reality on one side you have theoretical speculation, anecdotes, scaremongering and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories - and on the other solid empirical evidence.

Just wanted to add some facts regarding pharma hiding negative data. The legal regulatory and vigilance environment has been tightened up hugely in the past 15 years and this is no longer possible. All data, good, bad or indifferent must be submitted to the regulators.

In the past pharma exploited grey laws. They are long gone now (Vioxx, Seroxat etc exposed these major flaws in the law).

One poster remarked on their child being used as a guinea pig as vaccines are monitored for years post launch.

This is usual for all drugs and 1) is essential to monitor use and side effects outside in a real clinical setting and 2) can and does occasionally show that a drug is not suitable for wider use so it has a more limited use on its licence or is withdrawn.

Also re not trusting the conclusions of the drug manufacturers all data, every single piece, and it's source and it's generation (clinical trial data etc) are checked for accuracy and, to be blunt, to ensure its not made up by a truly independent regulator. It's amazing the details they dive into, even with family members, for conflicts of interest now.

All of the above is right to ensure rigour in the system. I just wanted to correct some misunderstandings I saw on the thread.

And with MMR I struggle so much with the hangover from one of the most shitty, unethical prices of research done in modern times. By a man on the payroll of the single vaccine manufacturers. But he forgot to disclose that didn't he.

Oh and OP it's personal choice. I have my opinion, others have theirs. We don't have to agree.

Brycie I appreciate that when someone says something outright thick or false, that saying as much is not always the best way to counter it, but I never claimed to be perfect. It seems to me the greater fault is with the person who says something really thick or false in the first place, not the person who runs out of patience. 2 anti's (Leonie and tabitha8) have recently posted to say that they'll post what they want, when they want, and there is no onus on them to check if it's true first. This passed without comment, while me and others who are copping it for being less than compassionate with such people.

Anyway, the hectoring issue wasn't your's at all. It was pagwatch's. Your point was that science is untrustworthy and so couldn't be used to counter peoples concerns. I asked you where else you turned for information.

Thank you Katiebeau, I know I said I was going, but your post is so informative and just what I am interested in, I just wanted to say thanks. Pagwatch, I must just say this as well as it played on my mind yesterday, which is I think the word "droning" about your posts was veyr personal and mean, I don't wish to start an argument with anyone else about this, it's just my opinion. I thought your posts were neither droning (nor hectoring!) to be quite honest. JotheHot sorry this is slightly argumentative, but informative posts like Bruffin's about how that study does not show what it is meant to, or the webstie liknks from Elianebenet are so usefu,l but I just cannot see the usefulness of upsetting people in the way that you seem keen to do.

Sorry Elainbenes, I think it was someone else who linked to websites and you pointed that out, that's what I was talking about (but I think you understand that!) Just in case anyone goes looking,

The problem is Brycie, Its not about just this thread. We are talking about the same people posting unsubstanciated misinformation for years. Its exasperating and its not surprising that sometimes posters get a bit short.
Also there is all this mistrust of big pharma bu they are quite happy to trust doctord like wakefield and halveson who make money out of scaremongering.

Brycie, you criticise my posts for their style, I criticise your posts for their content, and never the twain shall meet. I think accuracy counts above all else. You'll probably say what's the point in being right if no-one's listening. This style vs content divide seems to be a common feature of anti-science vs pro-science threads.

Katie you said
all data, every single piece, and it's source and it's generation (clinical trial data etc) are checked for accuracy and, to be blunt, to ensure its not made up by a truly independent regulator.

Could then explain this article in the New Scientist (which actually refers back to articles in Nature etc...) as to how more than half of the trials can not be replicated?
Article here
so much so that that scientists themselves are actually asking to put in place a system that could help review studies and ensure that they are replicable
I am of course working on the assumption that it isn't possible to trust a study that isn't replicable.

"Add message | Report | Message poster LeonieDelt Mon 01-Oct-12 09:24:18
and yeah Bruffin, its not surprising some of us get short with people posting the same unsubstantiated pro-vaccine-without-even-thinking stuff, over and over again [eyeroll]"

Wow. Just.....wow.

Hello JoTheHot

Yes I am sure I drone. Feel free to ignore me, I won't be offended.

The thread was started by a woman for whom vaccination is scary and complicated. She is choosing to avoid vaccination out of fear and instead of anyone really tryingto reason with her she was called selfish and thick and responsible for endangering "millions" of people.
Did you not actually read the thread and missed that bit?

For me vaccination is scary and complicated but I am 'lucky' as my GP agrees so I get fewer 'selfish, baby endangering, nutter whose children shouldn't be allowed to shool' posts
Did you miss all the 'your children shouldn't be allowed to go to school or get any social services' stuff too?

You also missed the bit where I said that the problem is caused by the endless bludgeoning by the two extreme ends of the debate. The two ends.
I am more irritated by the 'we are right and you are thick' postings of the pro camp simply because the threads in question are rarely 'I am so happy that I vaccinated. Isn't it great' They are usually shouting at someone who hasn't vaccinated or is concerned to.

I have thought a lot about the issue because it is deeply personal. And yes I do get irritated because the whole issue of vaccination could be discussed in a much more productive way but people don't want to do that.
I am not the slightest bit anti vaccine. I would love to get my dc vaccinated and feel great about it. It must feel brilliant.
But I really do know what it feels like when it is not that straightforward and I don't understand why people won't even try to empathise.

But I am faintly grateful for your posts. My main thrust is that being hostile, aggressive and determined that you are right so who gives a fuck - they ask for it- is a bit thick and self defeating and you reply that you don't care because they are wrong and you are right. Well done.

Perhaps mnhq could just set up a rolling 'pro vs anti vacc' thread and everyone can cut and paste to their hearts content. And then posters with concerns can get dealt with with some kindness.

Perhaps mnhq could just set up a rolling 'pro vs anti vacc' thread and everyone can cut and paste to their hearts content. And then posters with concerns can get dealt with with some kindness.

Again applaud Pagwatch

Anyway. I hide vaccination posts for a reason and my son is not having a good day so I am going to hide this.

I apologise for being ruder than I would usually be on here. I apologise to anyone I might have offended.
But this knockabout, kick the shit out of each other, yah boo stuff is about my life. Every fucking day. Until I die.
It massively annoys me off that others just dip into a barney because it passes a morning and they might score a point and get to feel superior.plus I feel sorry for other women who genuinely don't know what to do and just get name calling.

But that is my issue. I shall take it elsewhere.

Hostility against those overly entitled "I've read an article and I believe weirdy conspiracies and cover ups" parents who do not vaccinate is understandable. Jeez the lack of take up, through psuedo intellectual enquiry not immune compromised, means we are all more at risk. I give the same judgement to people who smoke during pregnancy or near me!!

Handholding replication of data wasn't part of my post, at all.

Replication is complex and often when examining different trails the result vary up and down. The red flags are where no effect is seen using a similar patient demographic across multiple factors and same drug regime and endpoints.

I have a question. Why trust one negative trail over multiple positive ones? The same applies in reverse of course.

I have reviewed closely "negative" trials rebutting initial finding countless times. Some are right. And the drug reassessed in light of the new data. Some utter rubbish.

No overall trend towards right on one side only. Each case on its own merits.