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?

So you won't be posting on that thread again. Good.

Are you going to correct yourself? :)

No. Because norma loquendi.

"Jeez Aly. It isn't already used as a test for the existence of pre-cancerous cells. This really isn't that hard a concept to grasp. You're clearly not stupid, I'm not sure why you're struggling so much with this. HPV is not pre-cancerous cells. You know that right? So when you're testing for HPV you are not testing for pre-cancerous cells."

I think you're having some difficulties with the concept that a test for one this is an indication for another thing. Yes, they are using HPV testing as a test for pre-cancerous cells - why else would they be using it instead of/as an adjunct with current smears - for fun?

Do you think there is such a thing as an "Aids defining illness"?. Are American social security administrators wrong to say that if you are dying from Kaposi's sarcoma, you have HIV?

"No, cervical screening does not. If you won't take my word for it - even the NHS has it under 'treatment' here. Not screening here. "

Bumbley, the consequences of a screening test can be that you are told (potentially incorrectly) that you have pre-cancerous cells. You attend colposcopy (still screening) they take a punch biopsy (still screening) they call you back for an LLETZ or do one there and then (screening & treatment combined). If CIN3 persists, you may be advised to have a hysterectomy. Or a cone biopsy. Or a "top hat" procedure. All of that is a direct result of the NHS cervical screening programmme. To try and imply otherwise is to be disingenuous to the extreme.

"So you think a risk of 0.4 per 100,000 is equivalent to a risk of 1 in 10,000?"

That's not the point is it - neither is scare mongering. Say that vaccines have a 1 in a million chance of severe disability and/or death isn't scare mongering either, it's a fact. It becomes scare mongering if (like you...) you only talk about the downsides, limitations and issues with vaccines in a highly misleading way and insinuate that they trigger autism. You can say "Vaccines are highly effective but in rare cases they have side effects". The NHS website says that - it's not scaremongering. You don't add balance to the debate, Bumbley, you only every intervene on one side.

For example on the other active thread I haven't seen you challenge the anti-vax brigade once. I've never ever seen you challenge them. Yet you claim that you are neutral and balanced. Well there's no evidence of that, Bumbley.

"Possibly - to balance discussion if it was relevant or if something they were saying was inaccurate. Of course, if I came on and ONLY talked about the positives of screening someone might come on and point out the negatives too. If lots and lots of people came on and kept pointing out the positives and no one mentioned the negatives except one person then would you automatically assume that they were 'anti-screening' or would you consider the possibility that they might just be trying to balance the discussion and give accurate information?"

Err, yes I would assume someone who talked down screening and only talked about the negatives was anti-screening, actually.

You don't add balance - you're all over the anti-vax threads adding more anti-vax insinuations into the mix as well.

They are testing for the presence of certain strains of HPV which make cervical cell changes more likely. That is not the same as 'testing for cervical changes'. The Pap smear is testing for cervical cell changes - it looks for changes in cervical cells. The HPV test does not look for changes in cervical cells.

Aly, I know what the consequences are of receiving a positive CIN test result thanks. What those treatments are not 'a side effect of screening' as you originally stated. Go all around the houses with it if you like but the side effects of screening itself - the procedure is well laid out in that NHS link - are not worse than a vaccine reaction.
What you are talking about is treatment - not screening.

Re scaremongering. Really? I disagree. Glad you don't think it's scaremongering to discuss potential reactions though.

As I've pointed out already, I don't only talk about the downsides :)
Feel free to point out where I've mislead people with inaccurate facts.

Didn't insinuate that they trigger autism. (Who is being disingenuous now?)

Depends what you consider 'anti-vax'. As I mentioned earlier, I've had to correct (pro-vac) people suggesting that the single measles vaccine, Rouvax, is some dodgy import from a foreign manufacturer - sanofi Pasteur. Now is is that intervening on the pro-vac or anti-vac side?

Re screening. Really? I wouldn't think that.

Wondering what classes as 'anti-vac' these days? Do you just mean anyone questioning/having objection to any vaccine on the current schedule?

Bumbley.

You said it yourself - having HPV makes more likely that you have cell changes than a positive smear test. It is being used as a test for cell changes, because if you have a clear smear but a positive HPV test (for high risk strains), you are put under closer surveillance, because the likelihood is that your smear missed something. Of course, most of those HPV-influenced cell changes will go back to normal by themselves. However, HPV test is more accurate at detecting cell changes than smear tests alone. And it is being used to identify those cell changed that aren't picked up by smears, as well as identifying the cell changes which aren't really cell changes at all, but inflammation or infection.

Do you think there is no such thing as an Aids defining illness? Did you know that even with laboratory negative results for HIV, you are still assumed to have HIV if you have Pneumocystis jirovecii if you are not otherwise immunologically compromised. Are you going to call the CDC and tell them they're wrong?

Sorry, we're not going to agree on this one. The screening is the reason (some) women are having unneccessary hysterectomies/LLETZ procedures. It is the whole reason they are there. There is no other reason for them being there. It is entirely the fault of screening that they are there. It is the outcome of screening that women will be picked up and overtreated/undertreated. HPV testing will help to fix this somewhat, but it still happens. It's worth it in the long run, though.

So you don't think MMR triggers autism? Glad to put that to bed.

Have you ever corrected an anti-vax person here? Do you consider any posters to be anti-vax? I have never seen you intervene on a thread to disagree with an anti-vaxer. Why not?

Have you ever considered anyone anti- anything, Bumbley?

Where have you talked about the upsides of vaccination?

You mislead people by only talking about the (rare) side effects and insinuating that they

trigger autism
kill kids more than the govt. says they do
are pretty much useless because incidence was reducing anyway
the wild disease is mild, so no point having the vaccine (you dismiss all evidence to the contrary)

Would you describe yourself as anti-abortion, at least?

Where did you learn your style of arguing, btw? Did you have a past life as a press officer for the USSR?

"No, not 'against' tetanus vaccination but if someone had decided not to vaccinate and another poster comes on and tells them that their child could contract tetanus and die from playing in the garden then I will point out the incidence rate pre-vaccine."

You do realise this is not a stance on the Tetanus vaccine? Please outline one.

"HPV test is more accurate at detecting cell changes than smear tests "

No, Aly. No, it isn't. It isn't detecting cell changes. It's detecting presence of HPV strains - are they there or not? The HPV test does not look at cell changes. I'm not sure how many different ways there are to say this. You seem to think HPV is a pre-cancerous cell or something.

Yes. We can disagree on that if you like. No way is screening the same as treatment.

"So you don't think MMR triggers autism? "

In certain susceptible individuals? I don't know. I think it's a possibility - as discussed at length earlier. Why do you keep going over the same things?

Yes, I think I may have corrected LaVolcan earlier on the thread. Why?

You didn't answer my question re Rouvax - was I intervening on the pro-vac or anti-vac side?

'Mislead' suggests that I've provided inaccurate information. Can you point out where?

Stop bring disingenuous wrt autism. It's getting boring.

Where have I said it kills more kids than the government says it does?

Where did I say they were useless?

Some of the diseases are mild - official sites say so too. Where is this 'evidence to the contrary?' We're still waiting on those puncture round figures from Hak and the mumps and rubella mortality info from you. Making statements that you can't back up? Isn't that misleading?

What on earth has my position on abortion got to do with this?

First line. 'I'm not against it.' That's a stance.

Puncture wound figures from Hak.

"Where did you learn your style of arguing, btw?"

It's one of the well know "anti vaccination" styles- the softly softly nothing to see here technique.

Another is the "wall of text" with myriad links to irrelevant or discredited articles, websites and papers.

Another is the one I have fallen foul of on the thread- the "how dare you suggest that anything a parent says about their child's condition may not be strictly accurate- you do realize that by saying there is no causal link between vaccination and autism you are accusing parents of lying" line. You have to be very strong to carry on arguing when the parent of a child with disabilities has accused you of "breathtaking cruelty". A very effective silencing technique.

Yes, I think I may have corrected LaVolcan earlier on the thread. Why?

The question was had you ever corrected an anti-vax person. Not sure why I come into that category having had my children vaccinated. I don't have the blind faith in HCPs that some posters have. So perhaps that makes me anti-vax?

I would also point out that the vaccine schedules can change between children. How many posters make sure that older children get vaccinated to the latest schedule? Some do, of course, but as a general rule - I suspect people don't.

Its actually the Messrs Dunning and Kruger style of arguing

I guess one of the 'pro-vac' tactics is to make statements that they can't back up :)

Where are all the links to discredited articles, websites and papers on this thread?

Sorry LaVolcan! I know you're not actually anti-vax either. Aly just thinks we are. No offence intended.

Offense*

"Where are all the links to discredited articles, websites and papers on this thread?"

I don't think that particular style has been used on this thread.

Well we know you're guilty of that at times don't we bruffin? :)

"I don't have the blind faith in HCPs that some posters have"

Who has blind faith in HCPs?

I'm not against puppies, Bumbley, but that doesn't mean I want one in the house.

What's your stance on Tetanus "I'm not against it" is not a stance. Is saying "I'm not against David Cameron" a stance on David Cameron or the conservatives?

You're obviously very keen to keep evading the question.

Would you vaccinate your kids against Tetanus, Bumbley?

"No, Aly. No, it isn't. It isn't detecting cell changes. It's detecting presence of HPV strains - are they there or not? The HPV test does not look at cell changes. I'm not sure how many different ways there are to say this. You seem to think HPV is a pre-cancerous cell or something."

NO, I think that the presence of HPV shows that you are likely to have pre-cancerous cells. More likely than if you had a positive smear. And indeed, HPV is being used to identify pre-cancerous cells more accurately than smears.

Do you think the CDC is wrong, Bumbley? Can the presence of one thing only signify that one thing?

What did you correct LaVolcan on (you don't seem very sure that you did " I might have")?

"In certain susceptible individuals? I don't know. I think it's a possibility - as discussed at length earlier. Why do you keep going over the same things?"

This is an example of you insinuating that you think MMR triggers autism, Bumbley.

"Stop bring disingenuous wrt autism. It's getting boring."

The only one being disingenuous here is you, Bumbley.

You know full well you have never outlined a stance on vaccines. "I'm not against them" is not a stance.

Well you're anti-abortion, aren't you? That's an example of something you admit to being. A pity you can't admit to being anti-vax. I'm not sure why you find it so difficult.

"Where have I said it kills more kids than the government says it does?

Where did I say they were useless?"

Bumbley, you never say anything at all!

You merely insinuate.

You insinuated severe vaccine reactions were underreported, i.e. that children were dying but that no one bothered to report it.

You insinuated that they were useless, because apparently Mumps, Measles and Rubella are completely harmless and never caused any problems in healthy kids.

Your MO is to never say anything - all you do is insinuate. It's a strategy you use on all threads where you want to inject doubt and drip feed horror stories.

Hakluyt - is there an anti-vax correspondence course where they learn this crap?

Haha even you can't toe the party line all the time Bumbley - why did you think LaVolcan was anti-vax? Was it because (whispers) she only ever questions vaccines and never ever talks about the good they have done?!