Please explain, succinctly, the anti vac argument

[WorkingBling]

With all the current news re vaccines and measles I realised that while I am very comfortable and believe strongly that vaccines are the most appropriate defense, I don't actually understand the anti vac argument. I remember the Wakefield thing but that has been debunked. So why do people still resist? What is the thinking?

Someone told
Me that he doesn't "agree with vaccines" in much the same tone as he mightn't say he doesn't agree with the death penalty but I was too nervous to push him further without understanding the issues better.

Do I really gave to post what I wrote a third time? I was referring to herd immunity for whooping cough (again). It's an example of high vaccination coverage not necessarily resulting in herd immunity for the reasons mentioned previously.

Again you seem to be denying that 'vaccine damaged children' exist. We seem to be going in circles a bit on this. You admit they exist but then when someone talks about heir vaccine damaged child they're lying about it.

What was it you said you did again?

"I get things wrong, everyone does. Sometimes people correct me; and if I was wrong I will admit it and move on; for the greater good. "

Hahahahahaha.
Yes, of course you do.

As you have trawled through my posts its a shame you didn't quote where I tell people that my sons reaction is very rare, regularly post that the vast majority of people can and should vaccinate safely and that I would love to be able to vaccinate like everyone else.

You really are scraping the barrel. You have no level to which you will descend to score a point on the Internet. Well done.

"Hahahahahaha.
Yes, of course you do."

That comment just speaks volumes about your own standards that you use to judge others by. I would not have got to where I have done if I just took a position and stuck my fingers in my ears when anyone tried to suggest another course.

"As you have trawled through my posts its a shame you didn't quote where I tell people that my sons reaction is very rare, regularly post that the vast majority of people can and should vaccinate safely and that I would love to be able to vaccinate like everyone else."

Oh really? So who told you that your son's reaction is 'very rare'? How do you know? What studies have you done which allow you know the reaction you think exists does, and how rare it may or may not be? Who told you that it was point-blank without a shadow of doubt caused by the MMR shot? Are you going to tell me that your GP and Consultant both said that as their professional diagnosis of the cause? I think not:

"Do the 'authorities' say it was his vaccination. Of course not. Do hubby and I have eveidence of a perfectly healthy and able child loosing all emergent skills including language and bowel control etc within an incredibly short time frame. Yes."

In short, what you say is your own conclusions, made up in your heads. Why are you using the word evidence? There is no evidence of anything but the poor lad's symptoms; NOT the cause. You have no way of knowing how rare or not this reaction (if it exists) may be.

It took me all of 30 seconds to find the quotes I used - all I had to do was search for your username and the word vaccine - and my; did I get a lot of hits. Pages and pages of vaccine related threads where you make sure that you post your story; managing normally to get the words 'vaccine', 'damaged' and 'child' in there somewhere. Whilst I don't dispute that you don't overtly say 'do not vaccinate', you don't really need to do you? Vaccine....damaged....child; is all it really needs. You are spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt with absolutely no basis at all for what you are saying, but it's OK, as you say it is 'very rare' as if you authoritively 'know' and understand the reaction, and even how often it occurs. As for inferring that your GP and Consultant agree with your diagnosis, just because they don't disagree to your face with your anti-vaxx stance (I don't blame them); don't make out that this constitutes medical opinion support for your conclusions or your decisions, as you have done. it does not, and you are frightening people into making decisions which are contrary to medical opinion, and accepted scientific facts.

"You really are scraping the barrel. You have no level to which you will descend to score a point on the Internet. Well done."

I don't care about points. I just want you to understand the immense destructive power you wield perhaps unintentionally with the words Vaccine....damaged....child, which you are using without any basis whatsoever for doing so. You could KILL people. By all means get involved with research into MMR, Autism etc. But until there is a provable causal link, keep your theories to yourself, and think about how frightened you are making some people, and the pain some children might end up going through if they get a preventable illness.

Vlad, I think you should read this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2315945-To-think-raking-through-a-posters-old-threads-is-despicable-behaviour

Again, you seem to be denying that vaccine damaged children exist. On this point, you do seem to be sticking your fingers in your ears a bit.

You are sounding weird and a bit obsessed now.

I have been on here, under one name for ten years. I have a profoundly disabled son and his needs were one of the reasons I came to MN in the first place. Of course you found lots of posts.

Putting specific search terms under my posting name is not how your average poster would seek info regarding vaccination. Only a twat with a massive grudge would do that.mso you found exactly what you intended to.
And you have courageously name changed so can post any shite you like and remain unaccountable.

Actually you are proving my point. I responded to you because I thought you were on here with nasty intent to shit stir and upset parents dealing with disabled children.

To do that you have accused me of disregarding medical advice which was wrong, of telling posters not to vaccinate, which is also wrong. You won't apologise but instead spend time sorting through years of posting to try and score some weird point.

You are exactly who I thought you were.

vladimpaler
Compare and contrast two of your comments about herd immunity (most recent first):

Herd immunity is a very secondary consideration

The borderline sociopathic behaviour displayed by those few who think it OK to let 'others take the risk' to protect them through herd immunity without having to risk themselves.

Your statements may as well have come from different posters. They are contradictory.

Perhaps you misunderstood the questions I put to you. I wasn't looking to be educated. I was asking you to explain anomalies in your argument. Linking to other sources did not provide any answers to the questions I posed. My conclusion is that you are doing no more than peddling the party line, using arguments you do not fully comprehend.

Resorting to hyperbole, personal comments and judgments about other posters detracts from any decent points you are seeking to make. I think you're drawing baseless conclusions from others' posts - seeing things that simply aren't there. For example, referring to Pagwatch, you say:

it is dangerous and irresponsible to attempt to influence the thinking of other mums and dads on here by using this as an 'example' of vaccine damage to scare them

I can see no grounds whatsoever to draw that conclusion or make that accusation. In fact I'm not familiar with posters who chose some/no vaccinations seeking to influence the choices of others. They're usually too busy defending their position to people, like you, who urge vaccination for all.

I think you have to credit people with the sense to do their own research and decide the most appropriate vaccinations for their own families, whether it be none, some or all. It's pointless and irresponsible to seek to compel everybody to vaccinate when you aren't in a position to factor in medical histories and profiles.

"You are sounding weird and a bit obsessed now."

"I have been on here, under one name for ten years. I have a profoundly disabled son and his needs were one of the reasons I came to MN in the first place. Of course you found lots of posts.

Putting specific search terms under my posting name is not how your average poster would seek info regarding vaccination. Only a twat with a massive grudge would do that.mso you found exactly what you intended to."

I don't think that replying to the above unpleasantness is going to help.

"And you have courageously name changed so can post any shite you like and remain unaccountable."

Err, and what exactly has led you to conclude this? Evidence for that accusation? More of the 'let's jump to conclusions from the limited evidence I see before me'....

"Actually you are proving my point. I responded to you because I thought you were on here with nasty intent to shit stir and upset parents dealing with disabled children."

And again - jumping to conclusions. You just assumed that is what I wanted to do, and then went on the personal attack rather than listening to the science and facts. All I want to do is act as a counterpoint to the dangerous things spouted on here by some, that has no evidence to back it up, and could be very damaging.

"To do that you have accused me of disregarding medical advice which was wrong, of telling posters not to vaccinate, which is also wrong. You won't apologise but instead spend time sorting through years of posting to try and score some weird point."

Not true. Read my post:

"As for inferring that your GP and Consultant agree with your diagnosis, just because they don't disagree to your face with your anti-vaxx stance (I don't blame them); don't make out that this constitutes medical opinion support for your conclusions or your decisions, as you have done."

At no point did I say you were advised to vaccinate. How would I know that, I was not there? What I was pointing out is that the suggestion that professionals agree with you, because they have not disagreed with you adds subtle points to the anti-vaxx stance. Likewise, at no point did I say you advised posters not to vaccinate. You don't need to overtly do that do you? Additionally, I note that this is all personal as it started out. Why can't you argue the points, or refute what have said? Why am I a 'weirdo' for calling you out on your 'conclusions' when you share and share and share again and again: Vaccine....Damaged....Child. You have no basis whatsoever for saying this; and you must surely understand that you will scare and influence some even though you don't actually say it directly.

"You are exactly who I thought you were."

Please remember that you attacked me and started this - I don't care about your child I believe was what you said. You don't know me, so please stop jumping to conclusions.

Finally you suggested I should be apologising to you. To be honest. I don't think it productive or healthy to take this personal squabble any further with you. For the record, I don't think you are a bad person, or that you do anything maliciously or with intent. I am truly sorry if my assertive style led you to believe I was attacking you or your child. I was not, but words without anything else are very easy to misinterpret. I have done that myself many times. If you want to take anything positive away from this - I am hoping that the ease with which you took exception to my posts and the rapid conclusions you took to about me and my motivations will serve to help you understand the ease with which some people might be influenced and scared by vaccinations when they see your story and the conclusions you have drawn.

With best regards.

"Why am I a 'weirdo' for calling you out on your 'conclusions' when you share and share and share again and again: Vaccine....Damaged....Child. You have no basis whatsoever for saying this"

The basis being raising a child who was damaged by their vaccines perhaps?

bumbleymummy:

"Vlad, I think you should read this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2315945-To-think-raking-through-a-posters-old-threads-is-despicable-behaviour"

Don't see what relevance these opinions have to this situation. However, I don't want to inflame the situation further with Pag, and in fact I think it is time for one of us to offer their hand out so we both take something away from this. For this reason I am not going to say anything further about this.

"Again, you seem to be denying that vaccine damaged children exist. On this point, you do seem to be sticking your fingers in your ears a bit."

Please understand - this feels like the 10th time I have said this to you; and it seems to not be going in:

1. Despite your continued belief that I have, I don't and have never denied the possibility that children can be damaged by vaccines or indeed any drug. They all have documented risks and side effects - read to paperwork that comes inside the packet. The word 'damage' is a discussion all by itself, but my point is that we are totally unqualified to do anything other than stick with the manufacturer/medical licencing stats about what can happen and the chances of it when considering 'damage' from vaccines/drugs. Note that the possibility of ASD as being a type of damage (yes, I know there are others) is NOT included in the list of possibilities.

2. Understanding and accepting that the possibility of 'damage' exists, does NOT confer any special logical right to draw conclusions about any damages that are not considered risks by the licencing authorities. If your child had a vaccination, then got rabies/grew a 2nd head/caught fire; you can't reasonably conclude that the vaccine is responsible. This logic is the same for any 'damage' that might occur in the weeks after vaccination. You had just as well blame vaccines for Junior stubbing their toe, or bumping their head. You can't have one rule for most things, and then suddenly decide: "You know what, although stubbing one's toe is not on list of side-effects from this flu vaccine, I just did it, so I think it is. Let's tell the world!"

3. When people connect ASD or other illnesses that are not considered as linked or a risk from vaccines, they are simply making stuff up to fit the conclusion they have already decided upon. It is called inference-observation confusion.

4. Whilst I am all for people having opinions, and making stuff up to suit their limited grasp/observations; they have NO BUSINESS at all trying to influence others into making bad decisions that could KILL their own children.

I'm not interested in an apology from you. I was just amused that you suggest you always apologise if you are wrong. Clearly you don't.

I'm not interested in continuing any communication with you so on that we can agree.nor am I interested in you best regards or your faux regrets either.
Trawling through my posts and quoting them out of context to try and justify accusing me of trying to persuade people not to vaccinate, and of disregarding the health of my children was quite deliberate . You and I both know your intent was malicious. Pretending it wasn't is pointless.
I am going away for the weekend so I will leave you to it.

Perhaps you could refrain from searching and posting from my posting history in future. It's pretty unpleasant.

fascicle:

"Compare and contrast two of your comments about herd immunity (most recent first):

Herd immunity is a very secondary consideration

The borderline sociopathic behaviour displayed by those few who think it OK to let 'others take the risk' to protect them through herd immunity without having to risk themselves.

Your statements may as well have come from different posters. They are contradictory."

Taken well out of context. The first statement: "Herd immunity is a very secondary consideration" is pertaining to individual thought processes when you decide if you wish to take the 'risk' of being vaccinated. Some seem to think that immunisation is only to protect the herd, and seem to forget it is actually to protect them. The herd protection is a bonus which helps to protect those who can't be immunised. Which takes me to the 2nd statement which is an opinion on those who try to rely on herd protection so they don't have to take any 'risks' themselves. IMO that is reprehensible and utterly selfish.

"Perhaps you misunderstood the questions I put to you. I wasn't looking to be educated. I was asking you to explain anomalies in your argument. Linking to other sources did not provide any answers to the questions I posed. My conclusion is that you are doing no more than peddling the party line, using arguments you do not fully comprehend."

I answered them; what else were you looking for exactly? I sent you a link that describe herd immunity, and I explained what the levels were to maintain it. Your conclusion that I am 'peddling the party line' is hilarious - the last refuge of a person with nothing to add. The 'line' I am peddling is the scientific, statistically supported, medically and government regulatory supported line. What line are you peddling exactly? Please tell.

"Resorting to hyperbole, personal comments and judgments about other posters detracts from any decent points you are seeking to make. I think you're drawing baseless conclusions from others' posts - seeing things that simply aren't there. For example, referring to Pagwatch, you say:

it is dangerous and irresponsible to attempt to influence the thinking of other mums and dads on here by using this as an 'example' of vaccine damage to scare them

I can see no grounds whatsoever to draw that conclusion or make that accusation. In fact I'm not familiar with posters who chose some/no vaccinations seeking to influence the choices of others. They're usually too busy defending their position to people, like you, who urge vaccination for all."

Although you are wrong - I am not going to inflame the situation with Pag any further; as I don't think it helpful. For this reason I am not going to go into the example you give.

What I will say is that scientific study, double blind experiments, statistics, and rigorous scientific method is the ONLY way to approach drug and vaccine safety. Your reference to hyperbole and suggestion that 'I don't really understand the arguments I am using' is hilarious. Please let's have your position on this. Do you agree and believe in scientific method or not? Do you think it is acceptable for people (let's say nameless people, no-one on this board, but they do exist out there) to make baseless accusations and observations about drugs and vaccines without any proof or study beyond their limited observation experience only?

"I think you have to credit people with the sense to do their own research and decide the most appropriate vaccinations for their own families, whether it be none, some or all. It's pointless and irresponsible to seek to compel everybody to vaccinate when you aren't in a position to factor in medical histories and profiles."

I don't believe I have commented on if it is right to compel people to take vaccinations. I believe that it is in some parts of the world - I wonder if their rates of ASD for example are higher than in the UK or USA? That would certainly tell us something wouldn't it?

For what it is worth, I personally don't feel it is right to compel vaccinations; I think that you are right. However, I would also say that it is morally reprehensible to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about something as important as vaccines based on nothing other than 'I made it up in my head from what I saw, so it must be true'. That is what I fight against, nothing more.

Pagwatch

"I'm not interested in an apology from you. I was just amused that you suggest you always apologise if you are wrong. Clearly you don't."

I was not apologising for being wrong (tbh, I am a bit lost on what I am wrong for, is it about vaccination links to ASR, the way I expressed myself, or some perceived attack on you and your ASD child?). I was trying to hold out an olive branch by apologising if my phrasing was perceived as an attack on your child's situation. I have found in the past that apologising for things that you think you could have done better (such as my phrasing) first works with most people if I am in a tense situation with someone.

"I'm not interested in continuing any communication with you so on that we can agree.nor am I interested in you best regards or your faux regrets either."

What a shame you feel like this. I tried, and you don't seem to be able to reciprocate. I guess once you have made your mind up, there is no changing it?

"Trawling through my posts and quoting them out of context to try and justify accusing me of trying to persuade people not to vaccinate, and of disregarding the health of my children was quite deliberate . You and I both know your intent was malicious. Pretending it wasn't is pointless.
I am going away for the weekend so I will leave you to it."

I am not going to wind this up again, so no point in repeating what I have already said.

"Perhaps you could refrain from searching and posting from my posting history in future. It's pretty unpleasant"

Why is it unpleasant? Genuine question, I honestly don't get why. However, I am happy to comply - as I said I don't think winding this up any more is helpful.

I hoped your response would not be as it was - and I tried really hard in my original attempt to calm this situation down to stop commenting - as I thought and think that this discussion was going a bit too far.

It is a shame that you found a way to take my attempts to take the heat out of this and turn them into yet more perceived attacks, and 'faux' lies. Even when I tried to calm this down; you throw it in my face, and make my attempts to reconcile, or at least part on cordial terms into yet more 'proof' of the unpleasant and nasty character traits you assign to me. It must be easy to always be right - I wish I had your superhuman self-confidence in your views.

Never mind; tomorrow is another day! I know you will think this is another attempt to attack you personally, but I will say it anyway. I genuinely wish you a pleasant weekend away! To avoid further unpleasantness, I suggest that you ignore my comments I do the same for you. Deal?

vladimpaler
Taken well out of context. The first statement: "Herd immunity is a very secondary consideration" is pertaining to individual thought processes when you decide if you wish to take the 'risk' of being vaccinated. Some seem to think that immunisation is only to protect the herd, and seem to forget it is actually to protect them. The herd protection is a bonus which helps to protect those who can't be immunised. Which takes me to the 2nd statement which is an opinion on those who try to rely on herd protection so they don't have to take any 'risks' themselves. IMO that is reprehensible and utterly selfish.

I don't think it's possible to take a comment like 'herd immunity is a very secondary consideration' out of context; its meaning is unambiguous. I understand what you mean by it and agree with it, BUT I think it's completely incompatible with your other argument - that people who don't vaccinate 'rely on herd protection' which you say is 'reprehensible and utterly selfish'. I think if you really accept herd immunity as a secondary consideration, then you can't also criticise people who first and foremost make a decision that they consider to be best at an individual level, simply because they may choose not to vaccinate.

You suggest that your opinions are based on science, are statistically supported etc. Where is the science and statistics to show that those who choose no/partial vaccination are 'rely(ing) on herd protection so they don't have to take any 'risks' themselves?' I haven't come across anybody who thinks like that and neither have I seen any research to support it. (Interestingly, one of your links - the Vaccine Knowledge Project - says: 'Unlike vaccination, herd immunity does not give a high level of individual protection, and so it is not a good alternative to getting vaccinated.' ) So why would people choose to do this and where is your evidence that they do?

If you are a strong proponent of herd immunity, I would expect some knowledge of the questions and finer detail surrounding it. I was specifically asking you how adults fit into herd immunity plans. (By adults, I'm particularly thinking of those who won't routinely have received the MMR.) If the target vaccination rate for the MMR is 95% of all children, what rates are required for adults? How are the rates assumed/calculated/monitored?

As for what line I'm peddling - informed choice. Like any other medical procedure, I expect there to be room for looking at pros and cons, and suitability for the individual.

fascicle

"I don't think it's possible to take a comment like 'herd immunity is a very secondary consideration' out of context; its meaning is unambiguous. I understand what you mean by it and agree with it, BUT I think it's completely incompatible with your other argument - that people who don't vaccinate 'rely on herd protection' which you say is 'reprehensible and utterly selfish'. I think if you really accept herd immunity as a secondary consideration, then you can't also criticise people who first and foremost make a decision that they consider to be best at an individual level, simply because they may choose not to vaccinate."

Of course it is. You are comparing the two statements side by side. Assuming you paid some attention in English class at school, you should know that you can't just take the words without the context. I have already explained that 'herd immunity is a very secondary consideration' was pertaining to the thought processes I believe many follow when thinking about vaccination risk. Most only care about their own safety. Those words ARE NOT MY OPINION, THEY ARE MY THOUGHTS OF HOW I BELIEVE MANY PEOPLE THINK.

As I have also explained; the 2nd statement "that people who don't vaccinate 'rely on herd protection' [are] reprehensible and utterly selfish'. That is MY OPINION OF THEM.

I must apologise, but I really don't know how else to explain this to you.

"You suggest that your opinions are based on science, are statistically supported etc. Where is the science and statistics to show that those who choose no/partial vaccination are 'rely(ing) on herd protection so they don't have to take any 'risks' themselves?'"

I state it, I don't suggest it.

I refer you to my previous link. Herd immunity is an established scientific fact. There are also established population percentiles for vaccination/immunity where, if reached and maintained; no outbreaks of a preventable disease are likely. These numbers are facts. Take a look at the link I post a bit further down for the maths behind it.

"I haven't come across anybody who thinks like that and neither have I seen any research to support it.

Well, I have. Luckily very few, mainly totally selfish and stupid individuals who listen to the words 'vaccine and risk', and decide not to - as 'Polio never happens now does it?'. I can post an exact example of this thinking from the other thread I am involved with. Someone actually posted that she did not see the point of vaccinating against Polio, as it never occurs in the UK any more! If you want some numbers and the theory behind this (it is called 'freeriding'); take a look here:

cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full

This interesting article explains the maths of her immunity, as well as freeriding. It explains the thought processes behind it in terms of game theory.

(Interestingly, one of your links - the Vaccine Knowledge Project - says: 'Unlike vaccination, herd immunity does not give a high level of individual protection, and so it is not a good alternative to getting vaccinated.' ) So why would people choose to do this and where is your evidence that they do?"

Why they would choose to do it; is because they are selfish, stupid people who listen to anti-vaxxer FUD and get scared. They then decide not to take the risk. Some will understand herd immunity, some will not. However the theory behind people's thought processes is clear. My original opinion stands; supported by the explanation of game theory which provides a clear explanation as to how the people I am referring to think. Those who understand herd immunity and choose to exploit it to avoid taking perceived 'risks' are sociopaths.

Viadim, the most interesting paragraph of that link was the final paragraph where it talks about the ethical and legal implications of herd immunity, that is my objection, society gains, the child who can't be vaccinated gains but my child just might lose.

Vaccination is about so much more than protecting your child, it comes with huge moral issues.

SideOfFoot Sat 28-Feb-15 19:58:50

"Viadim, the most interesting paragraph of that link was the final paragraph where it talks about the ethical and legal implications of herd immunity, that is my objection, society gains, the child who can't be vaccinated gains but my child just might lose."

You have spoken of this view before. It is an interesting position, but it seems to me to be missing a big piece of the puzzle. What about the protection for your child? As I have said above; that surely is 95-100% of the motivation for vaccinating your child isn't it?

You have two choices, you vaccinate or you don't. If you have a minute, I was wondering if you could share your thought processes around this decision. You will be aware of the 'herd immunity' tussle in the posts above of course. The below is not meant as a barked set of questions, just a brain dump of the situation as I see it!

1. Do you believe that vaccines are necessary to protect your child?
2. If so, surely you should understand the minimal risks and proceed?
3. If not, then you run the risk of your child catching a potentially fatal; preventable disease. I assume you would agree with this?
4. If you think that the likelihood of 3) is pretty low in the UK; so it is not worth vaccinating, you are (whether you are aware of it or not) 'freeriding' on the rest of us.

"Vaccination is about so much more than protecting your child, it comes with huge moral issues."

Not sure I see what you mean. Simply, it is about protecting your child. The herd immunity is a freebie bonus that protects the vulnerable members of our community which is not a bad outcome; but should by no means be a primary motivator IMO. The only moral issue I see with it is with those who choose not to vaccinate. Regardless of whether they like it, or are even aware of it; they are 'freeriding' anyway. If enough do it, herd immunity breaks down, and bad things happen; like people start dying and being maimed. For me, intent makes a big difference - unwitting freeriding is about ignorance. Deliberate is as I said before sociopathic and utterly reprehensible.

Haven't rtft, nor will I, but I am happy to give you my perspective if you want.

I think vaccinations can be good in some circumstances, however I think the current vaccination program has a lot more to do with commercial interest than with good science.

I am old enough to remember when the MMR was introduced, and how it was touted as 'one shot protects you for life'. So you may as well have it as early as possible, right?

Except it turns out that one shot did not protect you for life, so it became two, then three, then repeated boosters necessary.

I had rubella as a baby. My sisters had the MMR. When we all got pg, in our 30s, only I had immunity to rubella. They spent their first pg very worried.

Dh had the MMR (one shot at age 1 or 2). He had mumps in his teens and had his sperm permanently damaged.

My dc have not had the MMR. They have had rubella, and I hope they have mumps before they are teens. If they do not, I will vaccinate them against it at that point, so that they are protected when they actually need it.

The most effective vaccine against measles is the single vaccine, in the first year after it has been given. If I consider there to be a high risk of measles, of a particularly dangerous strain, I will presumably want to have my dc as protected as possible. So I would vaccinate them against that then.

I have been extremely unwell with adverse reactions to vaccines, and that was at a time when the vaccination schedule was much lighter than it was. In fact it was after one such massive adverse reaction that I developed an allergy to penicillin (I had taken it previously without allergic reaction) which is a very, very inconvenient allergy to have.

I will only expose my dc to such risks if I think that the likely benefit outweighs it, and for that benefit to be big enough there has to be a substantial enough likelihood that they would catch a disease in the first place. There are currently no diseases for which that is the case.

As to herd immunity, neither I nor any other adults I know are sufficiently vaccinated to guarantee that, so until a vaccination program is launched to cover all the generations which have not had the currently recommended doses, that argument holds no water.

Viadim, yes I'm protecting my child, that's why I'm not giving my child a vaccine to protect an unborn baby, vaccine to prevent adult male infertility. With rubella and mumps vaccines, society gains, pregnant women gain, adult males gain but my child can only lose. A huge moral dilemma.

I'll run the risks of most of these diseases, thank you.

Free riding on the rest of you, yes that is also part of the huge moral dilemma, but I'm not actively doing anything to do this, I can't account for the behaviour of others. I'm not making a conscious decision to do this. I don't want others to do this.

The herd immunity is a freebie bonus for those who can't be vaccinated, they can not lose. To achieve it my child might lose, if my child loses and suffers long term damage, I lose, my husband loses, other children lose, grandparents lose, if a parent can't work because they need to look after the child full time, the finances of the family lose, can't afford e.g. A house, luxury items, treats, the extra resources to care for the child.

What if the child is ok now but there are long term effects, my child's children might lose, their future husband, etc,

You could, of course, turn this moral dilemma around and say that I have a moral duty to protect those who can't be vaccinated by vaccinating my child. That's not my stance but certainly a valid point of view.

So, as I say, as much a moral dilemma as anything else.

Liara, good post, very well put, I agree with virtually everything you say.

Liara:

"I will only expose my dc to such risks if I think that the likely benefit outweighs it, and for that benefit to be big enough there has to be a substantial enough likelihood that they would catch a disease in the first place. There are currently no diseases for which that is the case."

So tell me, why are there no longer (currently) diseases for which that is the case? Did Polio pack up and go home because it got bored? What happened to change things?

"As to herd immunity, neither I nor any other adults I know are sufficiently vaccinated to guarantee that, so until a vaccination program is launched to cover all the generations which have not had the currently recommended doses, that argument holds no water."

Really? So you and some people you know are not 'sufficiently' (please define that word) vaccinated to 'guarantee' that? Please tell me how you are using the word 'guarantee'? How do you know this to be the case - do you have a biochemistry qualification? Notwithstanding that; are you really telling me that you have formed your opinion about herd immunity; to be applied of course to the whole world of course - from your experience of you and some people you know? There are 7 billion more people out there, and some of them know about statistics.

The argument is watertight. Read the papers and definitions I have linked to. Read the studies. See the evidence (measles outbreak in Disneyland, or did you forget that?). From your first paragraph you seem to be aware that we no longer have preventable disease outbreaks in the UK - this is the concrete watertight definition of herd immunity in action. The Disneyland outbreak is concrete proof of what happens when herd immunity starts to fail due to people not vaccinating.

In so many words; you are actually saying: "I think the risks are too high, so I am not vaccinating. The diseases are no risk anyway - I don't know why they stopped being a risk; but it was not herd immunity - but some other pixie magic that did the job. I base this on the experience of me and my mates; none of whom I think (in my biomedical expert opinion) have 'enough' vaccination cover."

The fact that these diseases have been basically eradicated (until herd immunity drops of course) PROVES that herd immunity exists now and works. We would be having Polio epidemics otherwise wouldn't we, or is there another reason why Polio started disappearing at exactly the same time as the Salk vaccine was released?

SideOfFoot:

"Viadim, yes I'm protecting my child, that's why I'm not giving my child a vaccine to protect an unborn baby, vaccine to prevent adult male infertility. With rubella and mumps vaccines, society gains, pregnant women gain, adult males gain but my child can only lose. A huge moral dilemma."

I don't understand, I really don't. I am assuming your child is a girl?

Rubella:

• If she gets it whilst pregnant with her child, your decision could kill your grandchild, or severely disable it.

Mumps:

You don't seem to have considered the complications that Mumps can cause:

Swollen ovaries

One in 20 females who get mumps after puberty will experience swelling of the ovaries (oophoritis), which can cause:
•lower abdominal pain
•high temperature
•being sick

The symptoms of oophoritis usually pass once the body has fought off the underlying mumps infection.

Viral meningitis

Viral meningitis can occur if the mumps virus spreads into the outer protective layer of the brain, which is known as the meninges. It occurs in about one in seven cases of mumps.

Pancreatitis

About 1 in 20 cases of mumps leads to the short-term inflammation of the pancreas (acute pancreatitis). The most common symptom is sudden pain in the centre of your belly. Other symptoms of acute pancreatitis can include:
•feeling sick
•being sick
•diarrhoea
•loss of appetite
•high temperature
•tenderness of the belly
•(less commonly) yellowing of the skin and the whites of the eyes (jaundice)

Although the pancreatitis associated with mumps is usually mild, you may be admitted to hospital so your body functions can be supported until your pancreas recovers.

Rare complications of mumps

Rare but potentially serious complications of mumps include an infection of the brain itself, which is known as encephalitis. This is thought to occur in around 1 in 1,000 people who develop viral meningitis due to mumps. Encephalitis is a potentially fatal condition that requires admission to a hospital intensive care unit.

About 1 in 20 people with mumps will experience some temporary hearing loss, but permanent loss of hearing is rare. It is estimated this occurs in around 1 in 20,000 cases of mumps

"I'll run the risks of most of these diseases, thank you."

You want to run the risk of being responsible through your inaction of your child possibly suffering one or more of the above complications?

"Free riding on the rest of you, yes that is also part of the huge moral dilemma, but I'm not actively doing anything to do this, I can't account for the behaviour of others. I'm not making a conscious decision to do this. I don't want others to do this."

I'm sure you are not. However, you are doing it anyway. As another poster rightly pointed out, herd immunity is no-where near as effective as being immunised; so you are basically playing Russian Roulette with your child anyhow. I don't mean that to sound 'judgy' BTW.

"The herd immunity is a freebie bonus for those who can't be vaccinated, they can not lose. To achieve it my child might lose, if my child loses and suffers long term damage, I lose, my husband loses, other children lose, grandparents lose, if a parent can't work because they need to look after the child full time, the finances of the family lose, can't afford e.g. A house, luxury items, treats, the extra resources to care for the child."

I don't understand this obsession with ensuring you do nothing whatsoever to help the community that you live it. If you don't want to, fair enough - but as listed above, you are helping yourself, not the community. That just happens as part of the deal. The chances of your child be harmed are minisule - don't lose site of that, and don't forget that the stories on her of vaccine 'damage' are just that - stories. The facts speak for themselves.

"What if the child is ok now but there are long term effects, my child's children might lose, their future husband, etc,"

That argument is certainly valid. However, if you think like that you will never leave the house. You do need to be consistent however. Antibiotics might have a long term effect on your child? Eating MSG, or food colourings? Them having Rubella when pregnant will certainly have an affect on your grandchild. Being dead from viral encephalitis would have an effect I should think.

Why the obsession with vaccines, and not antibiotics?

"You could, of course, turn this moral dilemma around and say that I have a moral duty to protect those who can't be vaccinated by vaccinating my child. That's not my stance but certainly a valid point of view."

Not really. You have a moral duty to do everything reasonable to protect your own child. The community is of course important, but no-where near as important as yours. IMO, the whole moral thing in this situation is a great big red herring. This seems to be in your case to be that you have been frightened by the lies, claptrap and baseless, unprovable drivel spouted by the small by vocal anti-vaxx brigade. The risks are massively, massively lower than you seem to think they are - do keep that in mind when making the judgement. Also, remember, that it is your child you are protecting.

"Liara, good post, very well put, I agree with virtually everything you say."

Liara seems to not understand the relationship between vaccinations and the removal of the disease threat from the community brought by that.

"I will only expose my dc to such risks if I think that the likely benefit outweighs it, and for that benefit to be big enough there has to be a substantial enough likelihood that they would catch a disease in the first place. There are currently no diseases for which that is the case."

Assuming you do understand why there is not currently a disease threat; you must understand the importance of keeping herd immunity up, or like her to you deny that this exists?

This was an interesting discussion until Vladim appeared. Your posts are so long I can't be bothered to read them. But get the gist. You sound potty, and make these other people, in contrast, seem entirely intelligent and sane.

Sorry Vladim but all these lengthy rants are not doing you any favours.

pontypridd Sun 01-Mar-15 00:07:32

"This was an interesting discussion until Vladim appeared. Your posts are so long I can't be bothered to read them. But get the gist. You sound potty, and make these other people, in contrast, seem entirely intelligent and sane."

Err....This discussion had petered out totally a month ago until I 'appeared'. I'm sorry you don't have a long enough attention span to read the arguments I put together. I guess the reason you find the short 'shot from the hip' answers based on stuff some have made up is because they are nice and simple to understand. I could try and dumb things down for you if that helps?

Sorry Vladim but all these lengthy rants are not doing you any favours.

"As my old Dad used say: "Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, but a lot of them tend to smell a bit". You are welcome to ignore what I say of course. A lot of people on the other hand seem to like and enjoy it - if the nice messages (both in the threads and privately) of support I have seen are anything to go by. Have a nice day!

"The chances of your child be harmed are minisule - don't lose site of that, and don't forget that the stories on her of vaccine 'damage' are just that - stories. The facts speak for themselves."

Vlad, are you suggesting that you know the risk for her individual child? How did you establish that? There you go again with the vaccine damage denial...

Why is the alternative to not having the MMR, having rubella when pregnant? You know that you can actually contract rubella and gain immunity that way don't you?

Vlad, I am surprised that you've had enough energy to stick around and keep replying to anti-vaxxers, you are way more patient than I could ever be.

Well done on your logical, reasoned replies on vaccination.