Dear MNHQ why does this board exist?

[TalkinPeace]

Having the board encourages people to think that not vaccinating is a valid viewpoint.

Bruffin The support for people with disabilities is generally poor, so no, that is not good either.

This programme talked about a 14 fold increase not a three fold, and for those who are of the belief that part of the purpose of vaccination is for herd immunity then yes, those that are disabled by the vaccine, should be compensated as soon as the liability is admitted. A levy on the drug firms might make them test their products a bit more thoroughly.

facsicle
Seasonal flu vaccine uptake is low because the vaccine only give protection against the last strain of a rapidly mutating disease.

What is the uptake among the children of health workers for the polio, meningitis, measles vaccines?

starlight
I fully accept that in a very, very small proportion of cases children react badly to and are damaged by vaccination.

However in a very, very large number of cases, millions of children react to and are badly damaged by infectious diseases.

Polio : iron lung or an injection
Measles : permanent sight damage or an injection
Mumps : infertility or an injection
Smallpox : death or an injection
TB : many forms, all deeply unpleasant, or an injection

The eradication of smallpox through vaccination was one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century.
The eradication of Rinderpest did more to alleviate poverty than much of the aid budget.
The sooner polio is eradicated the better - and we got so close before the hysteria set in.
Measles, mumps and rubella were nearly gone in the West and it was all undone through hysteria.

sleepymorning
I do not debate with climate change deniers - I've had enough stress with the chemtrails people.
Logical argument does not work with conspiracy theorists.

Talk - you need to look at the incidence of those complications. It's not as black and white as you are trying to make out.

Also,

wrt mumps - no firm evidence that mumps orchitis causes sterility

bumbley
Not sure what you mean.

Polio : if it gets into the diaphragm, the patient will die without an iron lung and not have much of a life with one. Whichever muscles it gets into will die. 100% chance.

comparative possible risk from the vaccination is a lot less than 100%

You know that polio is asymptomatic in over 97% of cases right?

Paralytic polio makes up a small percentage of polio cases. Polio does not = 100% chance of death without an iron lung. You should read up on it a bit more.

bumbley
I grew up exposed to the impact of polio.
If you think you are safe without the vaccine
www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/polio.pdf

Talk - Where have I said that you are 'safe without the vaccine'? (Although if you are in the UK then yes, you probably are) Are you denying the above figures or do you appreciate that the risk of dying from polio without an iron lung is not, as you originally stated, 100% and that the vast majority of people who contract polio will not, in fact, have a lifelong disability?

bumbley
If the polio gets into the diaphragm you are nadgered.

FWIW
You go ahead and not vaccinate your children.
I vaccinate mine.
Yours are at greater risk than mine.

I just feel sorry for the kids with compromised immune systems who are being put at risk by the anti vax nut jobs.

Board Hidden

5-10% of people will die in that situation - not 100% (and certainly not 100% of all polio cases).

See, now if you didn't hide the board you would learn more. I think you've actually just shown why it is important for people to have somewhere where they can ask questions and get information.

I am of the generation when polio circulated.

I knew two people at the schools I went to, so say c. 700 children. One needed a caliper, and one I never knew about until she happened to mention that she had had polio as a child. So obviously it didn't always go to the diaphragm and some could come out apparently unscathed.

Wow, thanks for your generosity bumbley, but somehow I think I'll stick to our family GP for health advice.

This board is the last place I'd look for unbiased advice on vaccines. I know exactly what I'll get here - patronised, attacked, sneered at, deliberately misread. No thanks.

It practically has a BUNFIGHT HERE, PLEASE LINE UP sign above it. Which is exactly why it should be merged into general health.

'The eradication of smallpox through vaccination was one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century.'

Really? What if smallpox exposure gave immunity to aids or ebola?

'I fully accept that in a very, very small proportion of cases children react badly to and are damaged by vaccination.'

It really doesn't matter what the stats are on a national level, for that rare child who is damaged the risk is 100%.

It is never a choice of iron lung or an injection however. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that you'll have neither.

It is also perfectly reasonable to expect the strain of disease to be worse and more damaging due to having never come across it in small enough doses to build immunity, against the current and local version of the strain, due to the number of parents selfishly choosing to vaccinate.

Slightlyglitter - I haven't offered any 'health advice'

The figures re polio are from the WHO though so I'm sure your GP is aware of them :)

Really? So the huge death rate from Smallpox would be totally fine, because those who survived might just be immune from an illness we already have exceptionally effective treatment for (Hiv/Aids) and another illness which could have been easily controlled had the international community got off their collective bums earlier.

How compassionate.

Starlilght - are you a hardcore vaccine truther - you don't think they work at all?

'The eradication of smallpox through vaccination was one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century.'

Really? What if smallpox exposure gave immunity to aids or ebola?

I've read some idiotic things on MN, but that takes the biscuit.

It was tongue in cheek, but it illustrates the complexity of the debate. Smallpox didn't kill everyone, and the death toll was heavily linked to the living conditions of the time.

I don't understand the question of whether vaccines work. It depends how you define 'work' and at what cost. We know the don't 'work for everyone. We also know they cause damage to some. It is harder to 'prove' they are SOLEY responsible for the irradiation of diseases or that this eradication is beneficial for the population as a whole. What would have happened if we eradicated cowpox before smallpox was attempted for example?

Vaccinations also have a political element and not all countries adhere to the same schedule or vaccinations. We also know that there is corruption in big pharma and well in anything politicians get involved in. There isn't always a sound evidence-based for things that it is decided the whole population will benefit from. Just look at education and education plans.

That doesn't mean vaccinations are a bad thing of course, or even those our government has selected for us, but being suspicious is frankly very reasonable.

Education and nhs plans.

How is it a complex issue? Yes some people who died of smallpox may have eventually died of something else. But it's not in doubt that the smallpox vaccine has saved huge numbers of lives.

If cowpox had been eradicated earlier then the smallpox vaccine would have taken longer to develop. Odd example to use though as I'm sure you know that it was the fact those who had caught cowpox were resistant to smallpox that tipped Jenner onto this whole vaccination business in the first place! So chicken vs. egg issue there...!

Ben Goldacre (Pro-vaccination and anti-woo critic) has written a whole book about why you should be suspicious of pharmaceutical companies (Bad Pharma) - but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Try to be more nuanced, and you will see that scientists who aren't affiliated with Big Pharma (i.e. Ben Goldacre) are very much pro-vaccination because the epidemiological studies are so strong and we have many, many years of evidence that vaccinations are highly effective.

The majority who caught smallpox probably wouldn't have caught it today due to improved living conditions. That is what I meant. Vaccination is not the only solution to eradicating or preventing the spread of diseases.

Also vaccination is not one thing. There are plenty of people who have not given their children the MMR but have given the measles jabs to their children.

There are those who have delayed giving the MMR until the child reaches puberty on account of the evidence of it lasting UNTIL puberty being pretty dodgy meaning the kids can think they are protected whilst not being when the diseases can arguably do the most damage.

The flu vaccine has not gone down well with the families of those in the medical profession, though they may well have given their families other jabs.

It IS complex. And to fail to acknowledge that really is quite ignorant. It is not as simple as saying 'Pro/anti vax'.

I have a family member who has one child out of two who cannot have vaccinations. She has refused to allow her other child to have them because she wants to treat them equally and thinks it would be unfair to have one protected but not the other. That seems utterly ridiculous to me and I feel, bordering on neglect with regards to the unvaccinated child. That, IMO is not a good reason to not vaccinate. But it is still legally that parents right to make the decision.

I think you need to cite that, Starlight. Even in this country the introduction of vaccines has helped to reduce the incidence of disease (i.e. Men C) to negligible levels in recent years.

I don't remember wallowing in muck in 2000, yet the vaccine still reduced incidence & deaths from Men C.

Why not have boosters - why leave your child unprotected? It's not going to harm your children to have a booster at 18. And even if they do catch the disease later, it will be much milder.

Flu is different - they have to guess the predominant strain each year. There is still good evidence that it does have a positive effect, though.

It's really not complex. The medical consensus is that vaccination is a vital part of public health.

I don't think we should be forcing parents to give their children vaccinations legally, but I do support a change in the law that you can only attend state school with fully up to date vaccinations, unless you've been told not to have them by a medical professional.

Many of the doctors and scientists are listed in this thread and have written extensively on the subject. Please feel free to educate yourself if your interested. I have no desire to do your work for you. It isn't a subject I feel passionately enough about and other people's ignorance doesn't affect me.

What I do feel passionately about is ignorant people not reprimanding others who have made different decisions from themselves about a topic they have not researched. That doesn't extend to posters such as Bruffin and many others who do know their stuff but have come to different conclusions from some of mine. I have respect for their patience, their research and above all their knowledge base. Perhaps quiz them!?

You can't come onto a thread, say something, then get annoyed when people ask you questions or pull you up on your statements.

Mumsnet does not count as a source!

I think the general problem here is the whole 'anti-vax' feeling. I've read this board and seen parents come on for advice, to be told (by posters who are obviously anti) to "do their research". Ever tried researching vaccinations on the internet? The first 50 hits are like a nightmare of anti-vax propoganda - sites like Whale, who would have you believe that vaccines are responsible for everything from autism to childhood cancers. Then you get, maybe, an NHS site giving the measured, balanced view about the safety of vaccines.

Some of those anti-vax sites would put the fear of god into anyone - but they peddle lies and pseudoscience. There is a general hint that GPs and HCPs know nothing about vaccination - it is dangerous to think that researching on the internet makes you more knowledgeable than the medical profession.