Death toll rises

[stargirl1701]

The number of babies under 3 months who have died from whooping cough this year has risen to 13. Just so awful. My thoughts are with their families today.

Oh, I've also never said that vaccine damage can't happen. Vaccines are medicines, they can have side effects just like any other medicine, and these side effects could be severe. some vaccines are safer than others, its not a homogenous group of medicines.

It's just any long term damage from side effects from the modern childhood vaccines in the developed world is very rare. It can happen, of course, but highly unlikely.

Brycie - I agree. I am always mildly amused to see myself described as 'anti-vaccine'. Given that I was so anto-vaccine I did vaccinate.

It's just any long term damage from side effects from the modern childhood vaccines in the developed world is very rare. It can happen, of course, but highly unlikely.

This, I presume is why you don't believe the people you meet on these threads who have experienced it. (We have done that one before, at length). It only happens to theoretical people.

With the benefit of hindsight, you can say a vaccination was right for one child and wrong for another. The question is to what extent you can know this in advance.

I quite agree. Which is why I pay such a lot of attention to what happened to ds1. It's very relevant to his siblings.

I always find it mildly amusing to be called 'pro-vax'. After all, I haven't given my children rabies, japanese encephalitis or yellow fever vaccinations.

This, I presume is why you don't believe the people you meet on these threads who have experienced it. (We have done that one before, at length). It only happens to theoretical people.

You're projecting, AGAIN, saintly. Despite my breath-taking arrogance, I don't think it's my place to question people's own accounts of events which happened to them. I have never done so (you can search if you like but I believe I have been consistent in this).

In fact, anyone who understands inferential statistics knows that they are based on a probabilistic paradigm. Statistics are probabilities and individual stories of vaccine damage are events. The evidence may (and does) suggest that these events are highly unlikely but that does not exclude the (very small) probability that they occur. Furthermore, nothing in science is absolute.

Again, despite my breath taking arrogance, it is important to be open to the idea that the current evidence is wrong, science is evolving. Again, it's highly unlikely given how much the topic has been studied, especially the link with autism, but the (very small) probability is there.

Based on current scientific evidence, the probability of long term harm from current childhood vaccinations is tiny. My opinion on this will change if the evidence changes. Not stories on the internet.

I think the main difference between us is the evidence we value. You seem to place a great value on anecdotes, both those you hear personally and those you read on the internet. I think anecdotal evidence has its place in hypothesis generation and understanding statisical relationships but I don't value it above scientific evidence. It's the scientific evidence which trumps for me I'm afraid.

It is possible for a tiny risk measured at population level to translate into a much larger risk for an individual child.

My decisions are based on what happened to my own child.

That is more relevant to what might happen to his siblings than population data.

As I said, when I had an average child I vaccinated.

Yes, obviously, if a child has had a severe reaction then the risk would be greater.

Like I said, I don't judge any individual decision. You have your reasons for believing the risk for vaccination side effects is high (even though I haven't fully understood why you think they'll fare better with disease but that's up to you if you wish to disclose further)

But the evidence is that there are very very few children who will suffer any long term effects from the childhood vaccines we give. Certainly, I haven't seen any evidence, aside from potentially severe allergies, that any child is more at risk from the vaccine than actually developing the disease. Being ill with a vaccine preventable disease for almost any child (including some who aren't advised to vaccinate such as immuno-supressed children) is more dangerous than being vaccinated.

I think Saintly gets upset because she makes up offensive statements and then attributes them to me. You can see it throughout this thread. I also believe that Saintly has not attributed her dc's condition to vaccination but I may be wrong.

I would be grateful if you could point out where I have said something unkind and insensitive to Saintly? I could certainly find many unkind and insensitive things which have been said to me but I try not to rise to it (although occasionally fail).

Yes, I've said that anecdotal evidence has value. I didn't dismiss it and I'm sure people's personal experiences and those of people close to them are given even higher value. I know I do that, it's human nature.

But I value scientific evidence more than anecdotal. Anecdotal has its place but I think scientific evidence should be the key driver in policy and decision making. I think the very high value based on anecdotal evidence typifies people who do not vaccinate as well as a propensity to believe in conspiracy theories and deep distrust of professionals.

OK, I'm not sure if I agree that that's unkind but I guess some people are more sensitive than others.

Point taken and I will tone down my language.

Assuming there is no herd immunity seems odd to me or doesn't make any sense to me - is that better?

I do hope though that you're policing all the posts on this thread. Like when Saintly made up offensive statements and attributed them to me. I doubt it.

People spend too much time inferring things from your tone, things you haven't said, even things you've flatly contradicted, and then taking offence. You'd need a very thin skin to be offended by Elaine. People express themselves differently; I seem to cause offence no matter how hard I try not to.

I don't understand why some of the non-vaxers won't say something along the lines of:

'I do what I do because I want to; because in light of what I've experienced it seems right. There's some science to support it, but not a lot.'

I might well not agree with the decision, but it's honest and transparent. I wouldn't argue with it. By contrast, when they misrepresent the science in an attempt to justify themselves....

Oh Elaine quit with the 'she's so sensitive' line. I wouldn't last long going out and about with ds1 if I was. Maybe ask yourself why you've been accused by others elsewhere of baiting and sneering at those who have decided not to vaccinate after having issues with older siblings. It's how you come across, maybe you don't realise how you appear. You haven't upset me - why would you? Admittedly I do get emotional when I relive ds1's regression (which actually I had to do yesterday as part of a talk - before and after videos to groups of students. yes i find watching the before videos upsetting - so shoot me, or just have a good sneer, frankly the upsetting bit is the regression, not what you think about it).

Yes Jo and it would be nice if the 'pro vaxers' (stupid term - we're presumably all one severe vaccine reaction away from being labelled 'anti- vax' - another stupid term) would recognise they might be a little cautious about their decisions if they were looking at a lifetime of care for one if their children. Because hey ho they'd be interested in individual responses. Not population safety data.

I wasn't answering you Saintly. i was answering your friend welovecouscous who was getting upset on your behalf. i certainly wasn't trying to upset you.

To be honest, given that you make up out of thin air offensive statements and attribute them to me, and given that these 'accusers' have called upon you and others to gang up on me and swear at me (quite unbelievable really) with yet more of these 'accusers' calling posters they don't agree with 'cunts' and 'wankers', excuse me if I find it hard to take the accusations of baiting (not even sure what baiting is and what it would involve) and sneering seriously.

Possibly, welovecouscous, if you constanly get offended by people who mean no offense, maybe you should reassess what your problem is?

Actually even I remember Jo being very rude, I mentioned to her before how counterproductive it was. I know it isn't right to "carry over" but I do remember it.

It'd be nice if everyone were civil to one another.

I also remember Jo being called a cunt and a wanker plus other choice words. So I'd say the rudeness is not limited to any one poster.

I think most of the pro-vaxers, me among them, have agreed that they would probably make the same decisions as you have in the same situation. I wouldn't pretend this was a rational decision. I'd say I've looked for the science on individual responses and it doesn't exist, so I'm going with my instincts.

NOt sure what you are trying to add to anything Brycie. Policing the threads and telling posters off for their posting style (as apposed to what they actually post) is not on.
The last person who did that got banned as it is just stirring.

Hi Bruffin thanks for the heads up, you mean you can get banned for saying if people were being rude? - that's pretty scary.

No it's for continually telling posters off, especially when you are very one sided. It's stirring and adds nothing to the thread.

I'm not one-sided, I think it's unnecessary and counter-productive whichever side it comes from. But I feel a bit "told off" by you Bruffin!