Paranoid conspiracy theories.

[superstarheartbreaker]

This is what the anti vaccine movement is founded on.

What a well argumented case you make, superstar.

You've convinced me.

some juicy examples would have been nice - I just had someone tell me that Bill Gates wanted to reduce the world's population by 30% by poisoning everyone with vaccines and that vaccines were made from puss boils of aborted babies...

There are nutters on both sides of the argument actually. I find the idea that I am a conspiracy theorist just because I have a different opinion from the pro-vaccination camp a bit nutty too, or the automatic assumption in a different thread that when a vaccinated child falls ill with the very disease them have been vaccinated against, it must be the fault of someone who didn't have their child vaccinated. Or when someone's says their child got a very bad dose of the flu immediately after the flu vaccination this is dismissed as pure coincidence.

We can all at times be guilty of refusing to see the evidence or looking at the evidence in an unobjective way, but labelling people with a contrary idea to one's own in such a way that you don't even have to listen or read them is certainly not a scientific mode of thinking.

Mexican, I was going to post something moderating here, and then I saw those two nutty statements.

Flu is not a consequence of the flu shot ever. There is no flu virus in the shot, so you cannot get the flu from the shot.

For most diseases, vaccinated children do not get the disease they have been vaccinated against. Unvaccinated do though. And when they do, they contract it from other unvaccinated children (mumps and pertussis in older children are the exception).

CatherinaJTV I think you are a bit behind the times.

www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/25084

"1. Name of the medicinal product

FLUENZ nasal spray suspension

Influenza vaccine (live attenuated, nasal"

And this is the thread I am referring to, Catherina

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/vaccinations/1932701-DD-is-unwell-after-flu-vaccine-and-seems-to-have-flu

And please don't think I was referring to anyone on this here thread as a nutter, I just wish we could all have a more scientific approach to the subject and not just be offensive to people who don't like us.

"For most diseases, vaccinated children do not get the disease they have been vaccinated against. Unvaccinated do though. And when they do, they contract it from other unvaccinated children (mumps and pertussis in older children are the exception)."

Catherina, I know that you are well aware that vaccines are not 100% effective so it is possible for children to contract diseases (not just mumps and pertussis) that they have been vaccinated against. If that is the case then it is also possible for them to pass the disease on.

Fluenz doesn't give vaccinee or person who contracts the vaccine virus from them anything like the flu. Cold-like symptoms are possible. That is not the flu.

And yes, vaccinated children can get the diseases that they have been vaccinated against and if they do, they can pass these on. Vaccinations are risk reduction, not total annihilation of any risk. However, the risk reduction is significant.

Hello, I'm a new MNer so please be gentle! I have lurked on the vaccine boards for a while as it is a special interest of mine. I am a public Heath scientist and although vaccines are not my specialty, dealing with epidemiological data is. My tuppence worth on the whole debate is that I have not seen any convincing data that persuades me that vaccines are unsafe. Of course, as with any medicine, there is always potential for an adverse reaction. But the common ones are common (eg vaccine site reactions) and the rare ones are rare ( eg encephalitis). None of this is a secret, it's all detailed on the SPC for each product. It is also sensible that some children in exceptional circumstances (eg during certain stages of chemotherapy) avoid vaccination. But I think that many of the reasons that are cited for vaccine avoidance have no scientific basis. Additionally, not to belittle anyone's experiences as I know how precious LOs are ( mine arrived after 7 cycles of IVF and I would lay down my life to protect her, as would any parent) it is a common problem with data collected retrospectively that people 'blame' an exposure for an adverse outcome. When something bad happens, it's human nature to look back at what was going on at the time and pin it on that. In epidemiology, retrospectively collected data is given less evidential weight for this reason.
Anyway, that's my take. The reason why I'm commenting here is because of the comments about 'catching' flu from fluarix. I think what is being referred to is the vanishingly small chance that when a live vaccine replicates in the body, there is a potential for a mutation to occur which allows the attenuated virus to revert back to it's original virulent form. This is said to be more likely in an immunocompromised individual, but to be honest, in anyone, the risk is so miniscule that it is virtually hypothetical. This is the reason why it is not recommended that pregnant women receive live vaccines (medicine use in pregnancy is my bag!).
Cheers everyone

I meant Fluenz, not Fluarix!