Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Refusing to vaccinate your child

575 replies

Organic100 · 15/08/2013 22:34

For a while now I have been researching the dangers of vaccines and all the cases of children dying or being made sick after having a vaccine, all of which is not reported in mainstream media. How do you feel about vaccines? I've heard that the medical profession encourages pregnant women to get the flu vaccine, and that babies are vaccinated at birth. I've also researched stories where parents have been reported to social services by a spiteful doctor or nurse, simply for refusing their child a vaccine. It seems parents are losing their rights. What do you think?

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 27/08/2013 23:10

Bye. Funny how you got cross when nobody was rude to you. LaVolcan polio in India is a whole interesting issue.

bumbleymummy · 27/08/2013 23:10

Boosieh's 'various minor was a far less common illness' I'm afraid you are very much mistaken there. It spread widely across the US, Canada and Africa. The reason that it is important is because people who were infected with the milder form did not catch the more severe form.

Also cases of smallpox were put under strict quarantine do that it couldn't spread - it wasn't all about vaccinating. Are you still sticking to that idea? Why? What's so hard about accepting that smallpox disappearing wasn't entirely due to vaccination?

bumbleymummy · 27/08/2013 23:11

Variola* not various - annoying autocorrect!

Boosiehs · 27/08/2013 23:12

I'm not cross due to rudeness, more the denial of proven scientific facts.

Night night.

Crumbledwalnuts · 27/08/2013 23:13

Well not proven scientific facts. And you did avoid the other question. And you were unspeakably rude.

LaVolcan · 27/08/2013 23:17

It's beyond ridiculous that people deny the importance or effectiveness of something like the smallpox vaccine program.

it's not beyond ridiculous - it's simply stating that the issue is more complex than that. Most of us think there is a place for vaccines, a good number of us think that it's not the whole story.

Quarantining people to eliminate disease has a long history. Think back to the story of the village of Eyam in Derbyshire, where they quarantined themselves to stop the plague spreading, when it was brought to them via a peddlar bringing a bundle of cloth from London.

bumbleymummy · 27/08/2013 23:22

Could you respond to my post before you go Boosiehs? I'm wondering where you got the idea that Coriolanus minor wasn't widespread and wasn't important in relation to preventing cases of the more severe variola major?

bumbleymummy · 27/08/2013 23:22

Variola* grrrrr

LaVolcan · 27/08/2013 23:25

proven scientific facts are often only the best explanation we have until further research leads us to fresh understanding.

Crumbledwalnuts · 27/08/2013 23:26

Arf at your various problems BM!

LaVolcan · 27/08/2013 23:27

Coriolanus minor? Grin Did that affect people's vocal chords making them talk in that overblown style beloved of Shakespearian actors?

bumbleymummy · 27/08/2013 23:29

Grin it's maddening! Every time!

JoTheHot · 28/08/2013 08:09

jo said - 'Do you refuse routine vaccinations bumble?'
bumble said - 'Why is that relevant?'

jo says - because this is a thread about refusing vaccinations.

Crumbledwalnuts · 28/08/2013 08:53

It's not in the least bit relevant to whether vaccines are as safe as we're promised.

JoTheHot · 28/08/2013 09:18

maybe not, but it is relevant to the thread.

Which vaccinations do you refuse because they are less safe than the disease crumble?

Crumbledwalnuts · 28/08/2013 09:22

It's not maybe. Of course I'm right.

This is the question in the OP. It seems parents are losing their rights. What do you think? Your question is not relevant. Certainly not necessary to answer.

Same with your question to me. You're just trying to derail. there's a number of questions above you can try to answer if you like - which are more relevant to the thread. But it's easier to ask a question which people don't want to answer because it's too personal, and then say AHA! as if you've proved a point, isn't it Jo?

Why don't you answer the other questions from last night if you're genuinely interested in a non-derailing exchange of views.

LaVolcan · 28/08/2013 09:28

Furthermore - if Jo were to read bumbley's posts, she could see that she doesn't refuse routine vaccinations.

OP was trying to be provocative, but hasn't been back in a while. To answer her question: as far as I know there are no plans as yet to make vaccination compulsory, so people aren't yet losing their rights. Some Drs and health visitors do use emotional blackmail, others don't.

Crumbledwalnuts · 28/08/2013 09:29

I don't think they ever will, LaVolcan. The people who are more selective are better educated and more middle class, in general, I believe? The lobby against compulsory vaccination would be very vocal and very strong.

LaVolcan · 28/08/2013 09:44

Traditionally the lobby against compulsory vaccination has been very strong, and people generally had more of a suspicion against doctors (thinking 19th Century here).

I am not sure whether this would be the case now e.g. on vaccine threads, and this one is no exception, there will always be someone who thinks that non-vaccinated children shouldn't be allowed to attend state schools. (It's as though such children are going round with spray cans marked 'measles germs'.) The idea that if they don't have the disease they won't pass it on, doesn't appear to occur to them. Parents of non-vaccinated children are likely to quarantine them when something is going round; possibly more so than those who blithely think that their child has been vaccinated, therefore they won't catch anything.

bumbleymummy · 28/08/2013 10:02

Not to mention that if their own child has been vaccinated then why are they worrying about them catching anything from an unvaccinated child? Unless of course they think their child may fall into the group that vaccination hasn't worked for - bit in that case, shouldn't they be excluded from school too?

Goldmandra · 28/08/2013 10:14

Parents of non-vaccinated children are likely to quarantine them when something is going round; possibly more so than those who blithely think that their child has been vaccinated, therefore they won't catch anything.

It's about probabilities not certainties. Quarantining and vaccination both work on that principle. I don't hear parents saying "My child has been vaccinated, therefore he can't catch xxx." Most people understand that vaccination is about reducing the chance that their child will catch or be made seriously ill by a disease.

Maybe people think it's safe to allow their children to be in school when there is an outbreak because they subscribe to bumble's view that these diseases are less deadly now anyway.

If informing parents of the damage that these diseases could do to their children if they contracted them and that they can reduce the risk significantly by accepting vaccination is emotional blackmail then so is giving antibiotics, screening for cancer and every other health promotion programme.

I have accepted medication for my DD to increase the number of hours she sleeps. The paediatrician explained to me the long term effects of sleep deprivation and the risks of the medication, of which I was largely unaware, and I reluctantly agreed that the benefits outweighed the risks. Was I emotionally blackmailed?

JoTheHot · 28/08/2013 10:18

I appreciate that for you it is self evident that you are right, crumble, but I don't agree.

Nor do I accept you as sole arbiter of what constitutes a derail.

I consider people who continually post comments qualified by 'some people think...' to be derailing the thread. It's just the Have I got news approach of saying something you believe followed by "allegedly". You attribute the view to someone else, so that you can duck supporting that view, thereby not engaging, and thus derailing.

It has been alleged that bumble and crumble intentionally restrict their posts to smears (unsubstantiated dangers of vaccines) and new age woo (diseases don't effect the healthy and holistic). They don't want to admit they have refused or would refuse vaccines without actually tackling the real question of whether the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease.

bumbleymummy · 28/08/2013 10:32

Gold,

"I don't hear parents saying "My child has been vaccinated, therefore he can't catch xxx."

Really? I hear that a lot. It's on MN too - 'oh, it couldn't be that, he's had all his vax" or it's a - like illness but not the illness itself Hmm

The less-deadly thing isn't my 'view' - look at the way the death figures were declining pre vaccination on the HPA website if you want to see it for yourself.

Did the GP tell you that it is neglectful/cruel/irresponsible to not give your child her meds? Did s/he suggest that you should keep her out of school? Did s/he tell you that if she didn't have the meds she would die? If not, then no, you were probably not emotionally blackmailed.

bumbleymummy · 28/08/2013 10:38

Jo, I haven't mentioned any unsubstantiated risks if vaccines on this thread nor have I said that being healthy stops you contracting diseases (I have already responded to a similar accusation up thread), I haven't mentioned anything 'woo'. I dislike the way you always seem to resort to false accusations on these types of thread.

JoTheHot · 28/08/2013 12:55

I dislike the way you accuse me of making false accusations when I haven't made any allegations at all. I've just noted what some people think.

Just like you've observed that some people think vaccines are more dangerous than the disease, and some people think diet, health and hygiene make vaccines unnecessary.

Swipe left for the next trending thread