Declining 8 week vaccinations for my baby - experiences?

[Plasticpineapple]

I don't want this to be about whether you should or shouldn't vaccinate your baby. I have chosen not to and I'm looking for experiences from others who have done the same. What did you say? What did the doctor say? Did you discuss vaccination once the child was older or flat out decline all vaccines?

My point is that vaccines are withdrawn when there are even a small number of adverse affects. An initial 15 cases prompted investigation. 101 cases out of 1.5 million doses is still only a rate of 0.006%.

You going on about a 'small subset' of susceptible individuals in the case of MMR (possibly, potentially) triggering autism is fear-mongering,because no such link/trigger has been found that stands up to scientific analysis.

In the case of rotashield, a small subset of adverse reaction reports triggered investigation, they found rotashield highly likely to be the cause of the adverse reaction and withdrew it.

There has been far more hoo-ha about MMR, far more media coverage, and this has also triggered investigation - but no causal link to autism has been found. Unless you think there is some massive cover-up going on in the case of MMR, that has led to MMR adverse reactions being treated differently to other vaccine adverse reactions, then your argument on a 'small subset' of susceptible individuals just doesn't hold water.

Alyosha
Bumbley hasn't outlined any details of her position. The only think I know is that she thinks Rubella vaccination is justified for young non immune girls. That's it.

I have now read the earlier part of this thread where bumbley was quizzed a number of times on her vaccination beliefs. I have no trouble interpreting her position and Rubella was not the only example she gave. But actually, I think the real issue is this expectation, held by some, that people should be either 'pro' or 'anti' vaccination (e.g. when bumbley said she was not 'anti-vaccine', you asked her to demonstrate how she was 'pro-vaccination'). I find this polarization nonsensical. There is lots of middle ground between the two positions. Besides, if you push for a declaration of beliefs, the focus becomes about that, rather than the content of people's posts and the validity of their points, which is the crucial part. I can understand challenging somebody for inconsistency, inaccuracy etc but that's not the case here.

Alyosha
I personally think accusing someone of lying is the same as making a personal attack

Once again, what I actually said was that hakluyt's statement was fabricated. For the statement not to be fabricated, there would have to exist some very specific pre-1961 data on children's puncture wounds and how many of those puncture wounds (sustained in a garden or 'such circumstances' as hakluyt put it) resulted in tetanus (hakluyt said a 'significant number'). For her to make this claim, she would certainly require a knowledge of children's tetanus figures (which she says she doesn't have) as well as access to specific data relating to 55 + years ago.

Alyosha if you, hakluyt or anybody else can produce anything to substantiate the claim (including the specifics mentioned), I will retract my comment about the statement being fabricated.

That's going without pointing out how those of us who accept the overwhelming medical evidence of the safety of vaccinations have been called "breathtakingly cruel" by the anti-vaxers upthread too.

Now the relevant exchange has been dug up, I can see your comment is something of a misrepresentation. The 'breathtakingly cruel' comment was not for accepting 'the overwhelming medical evidence of the safety of vaccinations' but a response to hakluyt's comment below, regarding parents who believe their child may be vaccine damaged:

"Human beings search for patterns. That's what we do. There isn't a parent of a child with a disability who doesn't hunt for explanations, for reasons. Hence the "never been the same since..[some significant event]" It's in fairy stories, mythology......In my family, a child was born in the 1890s with some unspecified disability "because his mother was frightened by a black cat when she was carrying him" (bizarre but true).

(There's no doubt the quote is provocative, by the way, from the mention of 'fairy stories' onwards. Perhaps that wasn't the intention.)

Hak - You don't know when the MMR is given and when it used to be given? How are you able to say that the timing matches then?

Silence - where did you get the 1.5 million doses figure from?

It's 'fear mongering' to think that some children may be more susceptible to environmental triggers than others? Really? I was asked what I thought and I gave my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

"no causal link to autism has been found"

Again, no one here is saying MMR causes autism.

Hak - any thoughts about whether a 'significant number' of children have been damaged by vaccines? (Based on your opinion that because any child got tetanus it's a 'significant number')

Fascicle- please would you explain how my post was "breathtakingly cruel" . I take great exception to that characterization and await your explanation with interest.

Source: 1.5 million doses of rotashield

For the purposes of discussing adverse reactions to a vaccine, I see no reason to differentiate between 'cause' and 'trigger' - the result amounts to the same thing.

Thanks Silence. Was just wondering as you'd originally said 15 reports in 1.5 million doses but then seemed to accept the 101 reports.

Interesting opinion on 'cause' vs 'trigger' wrt autism. I disagree.

Hakluyt
Fascicle- please would you explain how my post was "breathtakingly cruel" . I take great exception to that characterization and await your explanation with interest.

Those are the words of another poster, so no, I can't explain it on her behalf, although I'm surprised you take exception to it. I said your quote was provocative.

"Those are the words of another poster, so no, I can't explain it on her behalf, although I'm surprised you take exception to it. I said your quote was provocative."

1. You agreed with her.
2. Why would I not take exception to being accused of breathtaking cruelty?
3. Why was my post provocative?

Bumbley:

"Not inconsistent at all. No one is trying to claim that screening is the only thing that has reduced mortality from CC are they? It's also not really a great comparison to vaccination because the reason it has reduced mortality is because it is(mainly) identifying pre-cancerous cells so that they can be removed before they develop into cancer"

No - but you usually use the "it was reducing before anyway" to cast doubt on the effectiveness of vaccinations, so I'm pleased to see you credit vaccinations with the falls in mortality that they deserve. You do give the impression that you think vaccinations are really a rather trivial component in the reductions of mortality in various illnesses - would you say that's a fair characterisation of your views?

And btw, were you aware that around 20-30% of women with invasive Cervical cancer have had negative cervical cytology in the preceding 5 years? That's one reason that effective as cervical screening has been, vaccination is key to reducing the incidence of CC - the screening is only around 80% (very ~ish) effective at identifying abnormal cells, and HPV testing alone was found to be a more accurate predictor of pre cancerous changes than smear tests. The two together, of course, being the gold standard of screening. Just talking about this as I know you have questioned the role of HPV in the development of CC before.

"Why would it tell you that? I think you're getting confused. If the accuracy of the test is 99.9% then it would get it wrong 1 in 1000 times. Not tell you that your chance in reacting badly is 1 in 1000. The harmony test is around 99% effective in identifying children with Down syndrome. Is it a pointless test too?"

Do you realise you're agreeing with me here?

We test 1,000,000 people. The test gets it wrong 1 in 1000 times. 1,000,000/1000 = 1000 incorrect test results. We know the real incidence of what we're looking for is 1 in 1,000,000, so a positive test results means that you have a 0.1% or 1 in 1000 chance of having the problem. Do you understand that?

No, the harmony test is not useless, because the incidence of Down's is around 1 in 650 conceptions, not 1 in a 1,000,000 conceptions. The incidence of what you're looking for has a huge bearing on the accuracy of the results. I urge you to look at the link containing worked examples of several different screening tests in order to fully understand this.

"Population studies being 'good enough for everyone else' - Good enough for what? It depends on what you're trying to use them for."

You are still insisting that we wouldn't be able to see if there was a correlation between vaccination and autism. If your hypothesis is true, and vaccination triggers autism in susceptible children, then that result would have appeared in the existing population studies that have been done. And medical experts agree!

The studies you link to are really not what you've described; they are not finding children susceptible to autism rather trying to diagnose autism earlier; it seems to be taking very much a "diagnose it early and start early intervention" not a "will these children develop autism with the right trigger". But if these studies showed no greater incidence of autism in the kids with biomarkers who were vaccinated vs. those that weren't, would you finally agree with the medical consensus?

"The Men B vaccine hasn't been introduced yet. So how can suggesting that the drop in cases over the years may be a factor (among the other things that I mentioned too) influencing the JCVI's decision not to introduce it the same thing? You're reaching a bit there. Again, are you denying that mortality to many of the diseases that we vaccinate against was declining prior to the introduction of the vaccines? (You can check the figures on the PHA website)."

Well I was really pointing out that you typically like to use the case that incidence of x was dropping before the introduction of y to explain why vaccinations aren't all that. I'm not denying the incidence of illnesses dropped before the introduction of vaccines, I'm just pointing out that you use this rhetoric a lot to cast doubt on the effectiveness of vaccinations, despite the further precipitous drops in illness and death that occur after the introduction of vaccines.

"Now, that's just a lie smile I've answered you several times. You just don't believe me/disagree with me."

Bumbley, I'm hurt :( . I've asked you so many times to outline your position and you've refused each time! You keep saying it should be obvious! Since you seem to have quite a low opinion of my intelligence, you could help me out and outlines it now...

Fascicle

"I have now read the earlier part of this thread where bumbley was quizzed a number of times on her vaccination beliefs. I have no trouble interpreting her position and Rubella was not the only example she gave. But actually, I think the real issue is this expectation, held by some, that people should be either 'pro' or 'anti' vaccination (e.g. when bumbley said she was not 'anti-vaccine', you asked her to demonstrate how she was 'pro-vaccination'). I find this polarization nonsensical. There is lots of middle ground between the two positions. Besides, if you push for a declaration of beliefs, the focus becomes about that, rather than the content of people's posts and the validity of their points, which is the crucial part. I can understand challenging somebody for inconsistency, inaccuracy etc but that's not the case here."

How wonderful! You and Bumbley seem to be on the same wavelength. I have not been able to work out her position, so please do tell me.

Bumbley only comments on vaccination threads to cast doubt on the effectiveness, timing and safety of vaccinations. I have only ever seen her support one vaccine, Rubella vaccination for girls. Indeed, Bumbley also actively advises parents against vaccinating for Chicken Pox on some threads, despite her claims to absolute neutrality in terms of assessing OP's children's ~individual risk~ of vaccination vs. catching the wild disease.

So you can see why I find it difficult to see that she is not in fact anti-vax, when every one of her interventions is to cast doubt on vaccines.

I don't think there is a middle ground. You either think vaccines are a vital part of public health and vital for the vast majority of non medically contraindicated children, or you don't.

There isn't a middle ground for everything, you know.

Interesting opinion on 'cause' vs 'trigger' wrt autism. I disagree.

I shrug in your general direction. Trigger means cause.

Why do you think rotavirus was investigated after 15 adverse affects, and withdrawn after 100 odd - a 'tiny subset' of 1.5 million doses - and MMR hasn't been?

How do you account for the proportionately higher incidence of autism among unvaccinated populations than vaccinated?

Silence

Here is a really good article vaccines and triggers

There appears to be two underlying conditions that may be triggered by immunization . However it is the fever that may happen after a vaccine that causes regression not the vaccine itself. Any fever or medical stress will have the same affect.
My family has a genetic condition related to this called GEFS+ but in our case we have had no regression, just abnormal febrile convulsions. ie up to puberty rather than 5.

mitochondrial disease and recession "Although recommended vaccinations schedules are appropriate in mitochondrial disease, fever management appears important for decreasing regression risk. "

Understanding mitochondrial disease by Sumit Parikh MD

"nervousmom: I have heard and read that immunizations can be harmful to children with mito disorders. My pediatrician still wants my child to have them. I am undecided. What are your thoughts?

Speaker-Dr_SumitParikh: There is no clear evidence that immunizations themselves hurt mitochondrial or metabolic patients.

Medical stress (fever, dehydration, illness, revving up the immune-system) may bring-out or worsen metabolic disorders. Thus, there have been some patients where the fever after an immunization led to symptom onset or worsening. In these individuals - it was not directly the immunization that led to issues.

We recommend that our patients receive immunizations. If they are sensitive to declining during medical stress - spacing out immunizations and tight fever-control may help (but this type of approach is not based in medical science and what physicians call 'anecdotal experience')."

"but you usually use the "it was reducing before anyway" to cast doubt on the effectiveness of vaccinations"

Do I? I think it's usually because I'm correcting someone who is attributing the decline in mortality entirely to vaccines. I'm pleased to see that you agree that this is not the case.

"would you say that's a fair characterisation of your views"

No.

"I know you have questioned the role of HPV in the development of CC before"

I haven't questioned the role of HPV in CC.

The fact that women have had a negative screening result in the previous 5 years suggests that screening needs to be done more regularly imo (particularly in older women).

I still think you may be confused re the 1/1000 thing. If the test is 99.9% effective it means that it gets it wrong 1 in 1000 times. The test is trying to identify that 1 in 1 million reaction (or 1 in 10,000 if you're using pediacel) That is what the test will get wrong. It is not the same as saying you have a 1 in 1000 chance of having a complication.

I asked you earlier for links to studies where medical experts were looking at the small subsets of susceptible children and the potential of vaccine triggered reactions. If you'd like to link to them now that would be great.

What did you think I was describing? I've been talking about children who were susceptible to developing autism. I even gave you another example with women who were more likely to develop breast cancer. You have denied that there was any way to identify these susceptible children and I have been telling you that currently, that is what they are trying to do. Yes, I would like to see more studies comparing vax vs unvax in children who are susceptible to developing autism. I'm not sure that there is a 'medical consensus' on that yet seeing as it hasn't been investigated.

Nice backtracking on the MenB thing. Is that the closest I'll get to you admitting that you were wrong?

I haven't refused to answer you at all. I've answered several times and other people seem perfectly able to understand it. You just disagreed with me and said I had to be 'anti-vax'.

"Bumbley only comments on vaccination threads to cast doubt on the effectiveness, timing and safety of vaccinations."

So in order to be 'pro-vax' you aren't allowed to talk about the effectiveness of vaccines (which people should really be aware of anyway) or question whether it and timing and safety could be changed/improved? Did you know that there is an alternative schedule for Pediacel mentioned on its vaccine leaflet? Does that mean that Sanofi-Pasteur are anti-vax too?

"There isn't a middle ground for everything, you know."

No, but I think in this case you really don't have to be 'all or nothing'.

Silence, you are, of course, entitled to think what you like but 'trigger' is not actually the same as 'cause'.

Cause suggests direct influence - that it came out of nowhere as a direct result of something. Trigger suggests that there is already an underlying cause and an external factor merely 'kicks it off'.

"Why do you think rotavirus was investigated after 15 adverse affects, and withdrawn after 100 odd - a 'tiny subset' of 1.5 million doses - and MMR hasn't been? "

I don't know Silence. The rotavirus vaccine was estimated to cause an additional 1-2 cases of intussusception per 10,000. Also, maybe because it's easier to diagnose and was already a recognised potential side effect of the vaccine anyway?

"How do you account for the proportionately higher incidence of autism among unvaccinated populations than vaccinated?"

Link to study please.

Silence - just further to your rotavirus vs MMR vaccine question. Why do you think the government went ahead and introduced the MMRI vaccine with the urabe strain of mumps despite the reports of adverse events in other countries and the fact that some countries had already stopped using it? Why did they continue to use it when other countries withdrew its licence?

"Do I? I think it's usually because I'm correcting someone who is attributing the decline in mortality entirely to vaccines. I'm pleased to see that you agree that this is not the case."

Yes. You do.

How important are vaccines vs. other interventions (sanitation/nutrition) at reducing mortality/morbidity, in your opinion? Would you have introduced the Polio vaccine if it had been your decision? Or the MMR?

"The fact that women have had a negative screening result in the previous 5 years suggests that screening needs to be done more regularly imo (particularly in older women)."

I think research shows 2 years is the optimum screening time frame. However there are still many cases missed at 1-year and even 6-month screening intervals, as like all screening, CC screening is not perfect. Which is why HPV vaccination is so important. Glad to see you agree.

"I haven't questioned the role of HPV in CC."

You have definitely injected doubt into the conversation in other threads about HPV vaccination and the role of HPV in CC.

It seems that your views have changed and you are now unequivocally pro-HPV vaccination, so nice to see that!

"I still think you may be confused re the 1/1000 thing. If the test is 99.9% effective it means that it gets it wrong 1 in 1000 times. The test is trying to identify that 1 in 1 million reaction (or 1 in 10,000 if you're using pediacel) That is what the test will get wrong. It is not the same as saying you have a 1 in 1000 chance of having a complication."

Wait, so your super test is now a test for any reaction (allergy, fever) at all to a vaccine, not just the really serious ones????? What use would a test like that be - the results would truly be literally meaningless then!

"I've been talking about children who were susceptible to developing autism"

You gave me studies trying to identify children who ARE going to develop autism.

"So in order to be 'pro-vax' you aren't allowed to talk about the effectiveness of vaccines (which people should really be aware of anyway) or question whether it and timing and safety could be changed/improved? Did you know that there is an alternative schedule for Pediacel mentioned on its vaccine leaflet? Does that mean that Sanofi-Pasteur are anti-vax too? "

It's odd; if someone says they're not anti-vax but every single intervention they make on every single thread is to cast doubt on the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations, it's really tough to see how they are, in fact, not anti-vax. I assume Sanofi-Pasteur aren't anti-vax - but what about you?

And Bumbley, please direct me to where in the thread you've explained your views to me. It's still not clear to me.

"Nice backtracking on the MenB thing. Is that the closest I'll get to you admitting that you were wrong?"

Wrong about what? It certainly is one of your favourite anti-vax gambits, and I'm sure once Men B gets introduced you'll wheel it out to explain why the vaccination is totally useless, and to dissuade parents from vaccinating their children with it.

Yes, I do usually have to correct people with regard to vaccination's role in reducing mortality from disease. It comes up a lot and some people think that vaccines are the only thing to be given credit.

IIRC the WHO has said that clean water and proper sanitation have been the most important things in decreasing disease incidence. Sadly, many countries are still without these things and, even with vaccination, many people are still going to die from illness/disease that are preventable with basic essentials that we take for granted - clean water when we turn on a tap and proper waste disposal when we flush a toilet. I hope you aren't one of those people that takes those things for granted Aly.

Polio is actually one of the vaccines on our schedule that I think is unnecessary to give at 2 months old. Of course that is only my opinion and I am apparently 'anti-vax' but there you go. Re MMR - I've already said that I think rubella and mumps could be delayed until pre-puberty so I would have thought the answer to that one was fairly obvious.

Not sure where you think I've said anything about the "HPV vaccine being so important". I do think screening time should be reduced though. I haven't said screening is perfect but then neither is the vaccine (as I'm sure you know) and the point isn't to get rid of screening anyway. Even with the vaccine, screening is essential.

"You have definitely injected doubt into the conversation in other threads about HPV vaccination and the role of HPV in CC."

Where have I injected doubt about the role of HPV in CC? Are you suggesting that I've said HPV doesn't cause CC? I think this may be another occasion when you have to back track Aly.

"It seems that your views have changed and you are now unequivocally pro-HPV vaccination, so nice to see that!"

Not sure where you are getting that from. My views on it haven't changed. I'm starting to think you're just making things up now…

Aly - the idea was to test for 'serious reactions'. The incidence of serious reactions according to the pediacel insert is 1 in 10,000. If you want to disagree with that go right ahead and write to them and tell them it should really be 1 in 1 million. You do seem to have recognised that you made a mistake with your calculations there so that's something I guess.

Genetically susceptible - no guarantees. You can be genetically more susceptible to breast cancer but still not develop it.

So facts cast doubt on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines do they? Surely that in itself is worrying?

"And Bumbley, please direct me to where in the thread you've explained your views to me. It's still not clear to me."

See upthread. No point in reposting if you didn't get it the first (several) times.

"It certainly is one of your favourite anti-vax gambits"

Well, when I asked you where I had said this you used MenB as an example even though the MenB vaccine hasn't been introduced. So not really the best example of me using my 'favourite gambit' was it? In any case, as I pointed out, it's usually mentioned because people are mistakenly giving vaccines all the credit for the decline in mortality and you have already agreed that shouldn't be the case so I'm not sure you would object to me stating it anyway.

Re MenB vaccine - its 73% effectiveness and evidence of waning immunity over time combined with the reduction in incidence of MenB itself seem to be the main factors currently influencing the JCVI and its decision not to introduce it. Although maybe stating facts like that is 'casting doubt' on the effectiveness and safely of vaccines is it?

Re MenB vaccine - its 73% effectiveness and evidence of waning immunity over time combined with the reduction in incidence of MenB itself seem to be the main factors currently influencing the JCVI and its decision not to introduce it. Although maybe stating facts like that is 'casting doubt' on the effectiveness and safely of vaccines is it?

They haven't decided not to introduce it as far as I can see. They had concerns about the costs which are being negotiated with the manufacturer but have recommended, in their most recent position paper on the issue that if this is addressed, it be added to the vaccination schedule.

So you can see why I find it difficult to see that she is not in fact anti-vax, when every one of her interventions is to cast doubt on vaccines.

I can't see that. (I also think generally that the term 'anti-vax' is unhelpful and something of a misnomer - it doesn't seem to describe the people who are on the receiving end of the label.) One person's casting doubt is another person's legitimate questioning. I think giving consideration to/asking questions about the risks and benefits (or indeed benefits and risks) of medical interventions and procedures is a good thing.

I don't think there is a middle ground. You either think vaccines are a vital part of public health and vital for the vast majority of non medically contraindicated children, or you don't.

Couldn't disagree more. In between the positions of 'accept all' and 'accept none' there are plenty of examples of variation (choosing some but not all; delaying vaccinations; choosing particular vaccinations when perceived risks/benefits shift e.g. pregnancy; going to another country etc).

fascicle- as you're back, please would you address this post of mine? Thank you.

""Those are the words of another poster, so no, I can't explain it on her behalf, although I'm surprised you take exception to it. I said your quote was provocative."

1. You agreed with her.
2. Why would I not take exception to being accused of breathtaking cruelty?
3. Why was my post provocative?"

Schoolroundthecorner - you're right it was the interim report that said it wasn't cost effective at any price. The most recent report does say that it would be cost effective at a lower than list price although not for adolescents. They seem to be considering phasing out the MenC vaccine and replacing it with MenB.

"Yes, I do usually have to correct people with regard to vaccination's role in reducing mortality from disease. It comes up a lot and some people think that vaccines are the only thing to be given credit."

Well they are to be given quite a lot of credit I think - would you disagree? Do you disagree with the NHS' view that "Vaccination is one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern medicine. No other medical intervention has done more to save lives and improve quality of life."?

IIRC the WHO has said that clean water and proper sanitation have been the most important things in decreasing disease incidence. Sadly, many countries are still without these things and, even with vaccination, many people are still going to die from illness/disease that are preventable with basic essentials that we take for granted - clean water when we turn on a tap and proper waste disposal when we flush a toilet. I hope you aren't one of those people that takes those things for granted Aly.

Could you link to that, Bumbley? I too await the day when every corner of the earth is as lucky as we are to have excellent sanitation and water supplies, but I don't think we should wait for that to happen and only then start on vaccinations. And in some cases it is nigh on impossible to install sanitation/clean water facilities for everyone in a country. Do you agree with mass immunisations in the developing world, Bumbley?

"Polio is actually one of the vaccines on our schedule that I think is unnecessary to give at 2 months old. Of course that is only my opinion and I am apparently 'anti-vax' but there you go. Re MMR - I've already said that I think rubella and mumps could be delayed until pre-puberty so I would have thought the answer to that one was fairly obvious."

That's not the question I've asked you. I asked you whether if you had to make the decision 60 years ago, would you have introduced the Polio vaccine? You don't seem to think much of it. Why should MMR be delayed - why not just give an extra booster?

"Not sure where you think I've said anything about the "HPV vaccine being so important". I do think screening time should be reduced though. I haven't said screening is perfect but then neither is the vaccine (as I'm sure you know) and the point isn't to get rid of screening anyway. Even with the vaccine, screening is essential."

Well there's this whole thread where you imply that the HPV vaccination won't do all that much to cut cancer (www.mumsnet.com/Talk/vaccinations/a1877958-HPV-gardasil), despite the fact that HPV testing alone is more effective than smears at detecting pre-cancerous changes! Do you support HPV vaccination, btw? Given that even with reduced screening intervals in the US, for example, cancer is still missed, especially in the glandular tissue of the cervix and higher up in the cervix?

"Not sure where you are getting that from. My views on it haven't changed. I'm starting to think you're just making things up now…"

So sorry Bumbley, I assumed if you accepted the causative role of HPV in cervical cancer you would unequivocally pro-vaccination as of course HPV vaccination will massively reduce the incidence of CC...

"Aly - the idea was to test for 'serious reactions'. The incidence of serious reactions according to the pediacel insert is 1 in 10,000. If you want to disagree with that go right ahead and write to them and tell them it should really be 1 in 1 million. You do seem to have recognised that you made a mistake with your calculations there so that's something I guess."

We went over this before didn't we?? I said that for me, serious = permanent disability, death, lifelong conditions. So for that kind of 1-in-a-million reaction, my calculations stand. Of course, even if those reactions were 1 in 10,000 a positive test result would still only mean you had a 10% risk of having the serious reaction.

I'm still not confident you understand what I was saying re: incidence and false positives.

"So facts cast doubt on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines do they? Surely that in itself is worrying?"

Does the fact that mortality was reducing from CC before the introduction of screening cast doubt on its effectiveness?

"See upthread. No point in reposting if you didn't get it the first (several) times."

Whereabouts in the thread (.e. approx page no)? I may have missed it.

"Well, when I asked you where I had said this you used MenB as an example even though the MenB vaccine hasn't been introduced. So not really the best example of me using my 'favourite gambit' was it? wink In any case, as I pointed out, it's usually mentioned because people are mistakenly giving vaccines all the credit for the decline in mortality and you have already agreed that shouldn't be the case so I'm not sure you would object to me stating it anyway."

? You dismissed Men B by saying that the incidence is reducing so no point in introducing it - I pointed out that considering an intervention you favour (CC) had incidence falling before its introduction, this was rather a shaky way of dismissing a vaccine!

"Re MenB vaccine - its 73% effectiveness and evidence of waning immunity over time combined with the reduction in incidence of MenB itself seem to be the main factors currently influencing the JCVI and its decision not to introduce it. Although maybe stating facts like that is 'casting doubt' on the effectiveness and safely of vaccines is it?"

CC screening has an effectiveness of anywhere in between 50-80% depending on collection method, fixing method and interval duration. But it's still a vital tool in improving women's health. 73% is better than 0%, as I'm sure you would agree. And it all depends on how you say it- I do think you have a tendency to come on, start talking about how vaccines didn't really do all that much as the disease was reducing before they came in (despite the conclusive medical opinion that they did actually massively reduce disease & death) and imply that they're not worth the time, hassle or risk. You never bring facts related to how vaccines have saved an estimated 3 million children a year!

"Couldn't disagree more. In between the positions of 'accept all' and 'accept none' there are plenty of examples of variation (choosing some but not all; delaying vaccinations; choosing particular vaccinations when perceived risks/benefits shift e.g. pregnancy; going to another country etc)."

Fascicle, that's not what I said. I said "I don't think there is a middle ground. You either think vaccines are a vital part of public health and vital for the vast majority of non medically contraindicated children, or you don't.". Do you think vaccines are a vital part of public health?

In fact Bumbley, you can see that just talking about the "facts" can lead someone to believe that someone is pro- or anti. For example, if I told you the fact that CC screening is only around 45% effective at detecting pre-cancerous changes in those under 30, and that mortality was reducing before it was introduced, and those were the only two things I talked about, would that not be a very biased view of the picture? Factual yes, but misleading. You might also get the impression that I was against Cervical screening, wouldn't you? Especially if I never talked about the fact that despite its limitations CC screening saves roughly ~5000 lives year. Like you never talk about the millions of lives vaccination has saved.