Vaccines and autism

Sligo1

Hi guys, just read this and I thought I'd post it here. I'm sure most of you will know that this doctors claims were false however, I said I'd post anyway and hopefully someone will find it interesting.

http://www.upworthy.com/16-years-ago-a-doctor-published-a-study-it-was-completely-made-up-and-it-made-us-all-sicker

fro9etb8j5qsl2

I happened upon an American parenting forum recently where there was a big thread of parents boasting about how they weren't vaccinating and their kids were going to be super strong and healthier because of it :eek: It's shocking that people in this day and age have this warped mentality and are willing to risk their own childrens lives and the lives of other immunosuppressed people just to suit their own pig ironied ignorance

pwurple

No harm in passing that along, even though it should be common knowledge.

I even encountered a locum GP who refused to vaccinate my eldest daughter for MMR. Thank feck my normal GP is a bit more clued in, and when she came back she was mortified at what the other one had said.

Sligo1

Mrspostman... The mentality of some people is just so bizarre!! I can't fathom their thought processes at all! It's awful for their children, and just terrible that they are putting other kids at risk because of their own negligence.

Pwurple, that is ridiculous about that GP!!?? I would have thought all medical practitioners (who "should" be up to date with their practice) should stand by health promotion and prevention of illness.

I read about this docs fabricated research years ago. Just thought this link was a nice little synopsis for parents of some of the research that has been carried out since and really easy to read

lazygal

Nothing makes my blood boil and gets my back up more than anti vaccine parents. They are relying on those of us who are responsible to protect their children. I know of enough horror stories of children left with lifelong conditions because of 'normal' childhood illnesses that could have been eliminated by now to make me not hesitate for a moment about vaccinating. I firmly believe school enrolment should require all vaccines to be up to date unless there is a medical reason to not vaccinate. There are immuno suppressed people at risk every day because of this crap.

ancapailldorcha

It's funny how these morons make snap decisions at the behest of celebrities yet ask for evidence when someone says that MMR is completely safe. The mind boggles.

lazygal

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's funny how these morons make snap decisions at the behest of celebrities yet ask for evidence when someone says that MMR is completely safe. The mind boggles.

If I got my hands on Jennie McCarthy......

ancapailldorcha

lazygal wrote: »

If I got my hands on Jennie McCarthy......

Yupp. A playboy bunny. People are making medical decisions on their offspring's behalf based on the advice of a playboy bunny. It's almost a parody of itself.

eviltwin

Both my kids have autism, both vaccinated. I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked if I think their vaccinations were to blame. That doctor did a lot of damage and its going to take years to undo. :mad:

cyning

I had to have my little girls immune system tested at 6 months to see if she was immuno compromised. Thankfully she wasn't but she gets sick all the time. She also gets sick after her vaccinations. She still gets them because picking up a viral infection/getting pneumonia is nothing compared to getting meningitis c for example. The amount of people who think I'm irresponsible for giving vaccinations shocks me. Absolutely shocks me. I just cannot understand it at all to be honest.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

Both my kids have autism, both vaccinated. I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked if I think their vaccinations were to blame. That doctor did a lot of damage and its going to take years to undo. :mad:

Not only that it makes parents think "what if" and feel guilty for something that is not linked to autism if their children are diagnosed as being on the spectrum.

seventeen sheep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

sari

I've read that the majority of parents who decide against vaccines are highly educated!
I can't imagine anyone who chooses not to vaccinate basing their decision on what a celebrity says.

pwurple

sari wrote: »

I've read that the majority of parents who decide against vaccines are highly educated!

You can be educated and an inconsiderate gob****e at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

ancapailldorcha

Relevant:



Also, there's an excellent page on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM?fref=ts

sari

That was in response to other comments saying people who choose not to vaccinate do so based on the opinions of playboy bunnys and that they made snap decisions. The fact the majority of people who choose not to are highly educated would seem to cast doubt on that assumption.
There is many reasons why someone doesn't vaccinte one reason may be an allergy to vaccine components or reactions to previous vaccines. So making sweeping statements like not doing so because of a playboy bunny could be very hurtful much in the same way that poster cyning now feels judged as irresponsible for vaccinating. My point is that we should be mindful of what we say and how it can hurt others before we make sweeping, negative statements

seventeen sheep

sari wrote: »

That was in response to other comments saying people who choose not to vaccinate do so based on the opinions of playboy bunnys and that they made snap decisions. The fact the majority of people who choose not to are highly educated would seem to cast doubt on that assumption.
There is many reasons why someone doesn't vaccinte one reason may be an allergy to vaccine components or reactions to previous reactions. So making sweeping statements like not doing so because of a playboy bunny could be very hurtful much in the same way that poster cyning now feels judged as irresponsible for vaccinating. My point is that we should be mindful of what we say and how it can hurt others before we make sweeping, negative statement

I'll very happily hurt someone's feelings before I'll consciously make the decision to risk babies' lives by not vaccinating my own baby.

Vaccinations can safely be given to babies with allergies under controlled conditions.

Even if your own child is unwell, it's no excuse to put other healthy babies at risk.

ancapailldorcha

sari wrote: »

That was in response to other comments saying people who choose not to vaccinate do so based on the opinions of playboy bunnys and that they made snap decisions. The fact the majority of people who choose not to are highly educated would seem to cast doubt on that assumption.
There is many reasons why someone doesn't vaccinte one reason may be an allergy to vaccine components or reactions to previous reactions. So making sweeping statements like not doing so because of a playboy bunny could be very hurtful much in the same way that poster cyning now feels judged as irresponsible for vaccinating. My point is that we should be mindful of what we say and how it can hurt others before we make sweeping, negative statement

Such allergies are usually quite rare and unfortunately, only discovered upon contact with the allergen, ie the vaccine. Of course there are legitimate reasons but they're in the minority.

There are a lot of people who've bought into the conspiracy theory that big Pharma tried to silence Wakefield and I have no problem labeling people like that as morons. Being highly educated means diddly squat in my experience. I'm an academic and I spend most of my time around such people. I know people with PhDs who come out with all sorts of nonsense.

pwurple

sari wrote: »

That was in response to other comments saying people who choose not to vaccinate do so based on the opinions of playboy bunnys and that they made snap decisions. The fact the majority of people who choose not to are highly educated would seem to cast doubt on that assumption.
There is many reasons why someone doesn't vaccinte one reason may be an allergy to vaccine components or reactions to previous reactions. So making sweeping statements like not doing so because of a playboy bunny could be very hurtful much in the same way that poster cyning now feels judged as irresponsible for vaccinating. My point is that we should be mindful of what we say and how it can hurt others before we make sweeping, negative statement

I think it's more like the complete opposite to what cyning has experienced.

A lot of the reason to vaccinate is to protect those who cannot get vaccines. I know immunosuppressed children, and you have never encountered the level of hurt/fear/anger their parents experience when they meet someone who 'chooses' not to vaccinate for fuzzy reasons.

Woshy

Has anyone ever actually come across an anti-vaccine parent here? Just wondering how common it is in Ireland. I know it's very prevalent in the States but I've never come across any parents here who do not vaccinate by choice.

Miaireland

I have a cousin who caught the measles at 11 months days before she was due her MMR. She was so ill with them I cannot believe that people take the risk of not giving the MMR or waiting until the child can talk before giving it

ancapailldorcha

Woshy wrote: »

Has anyone ever actually come across an anti-vaccine parent here? Just wondering how common it is in Ireland. I know it's very prevalent in the States but I've never come across any parents here who do not vaccinate by choice.

Closest I've come is meeting a fashion designer at a coffee shop in Brighton who said they were a form of mind control to get people spending before Christmas. Her "evidence" was a youtube video she saw once.

Miaireland

I would know of five or six parents. Most are anti the MMR only or else give the vaccines in dribs and drabs so the child it around 6 before they get all their baby vaccines.

I know of one mother who is anti all vaccines. She feels God has made her child perfect so he does not need them.

Woshy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Closest I've come is meeting a fashion designer at a coffee shop in Brighton who said they were a form of mind control to get people spending before Christmas. Her "evidence" was a youtube video she saw once.

Jaysus!

I know a father that won't let his daughter swim because of the chlorine and turns the wifi off unless he needs it as he thinks it will damage her brain ( but uses a video baby monitor in her cot!) but that's the closest for me!

sari

It's the exact same thing judgement is judgement. She is being labelled as irresponsible and those who choose not too are also being labelled irresponsible, that will feel the same and hurt in the same way.
Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions be they positive or negative, everyone is also entitled to voice those opinions. I believe that we should just do it in a respectful way rather than nasty jibes and petty put downs.

ancapailldorcha

Woshy wrote: »

Jaysus!

I know a father that won't let his daughter swim because of the chlorine and turns the wifi off unless he needs it as he thinks it will damage her brain ( but uses a video baby monitor in her cot!) but that's the closest for me!

Yupp. I won't speak about wifi but there are standards and legislation in place for exactly this reason.

The idiot I met came out with all sorts of stuff including how Sandy Hook didn't happen, AIDS was an attempt to eradicate homosexuality, etc.. while citing youtube videos. The mind boggles.

cyning

For the record I'm about as pro vaccine as you can get. It beyond irritates me when people don't vaccinate because they think there's a link with autism. My fil is immuno compromised post transplant so someone who chooses not to vaccinate their kids could potentially kill someone like that if there's an outbreak of measles etc. Someone's dad or grandad.

I get annoyed with people who think I'm mad to vaccinate when my child reacts to them. The reason I have to vaccinate her is because thanks to them I can't rely on herd immunity.

And in real life I know people who don't vaccinate. And I don't doubt for a second they think they are doing right by their children. Problem is their decisions affect me.

pwurple

Woshy wrote: »

Has anyone ever actually come across an anti-vaccine parent here? Just wondering how common it is in Ireland. I know it's very prevalent in the States but I've never come across any parents here who do not vaccinate by choice.

Oh gosh LOADS! I've an aunt who is into homeopathy, and encourages her children to not-vaccinate her grandchildren. They are all anti-vacc now.

I'd get about in the food sector as well, and am in a few gardening groups, the hippy force is strong in those social circles, so it's all herbal remedies and healing crystals instead of vaccines. I'm fairly hippy-leaning myself, we do our best to live relatively green and eco. But I cannot condone endangering children's lives.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Woshy wrote: »

Has anyone ever actually come across an anti-vaccine parent here? Just wondering how common it is in Ireland. I know it's very prevalent in the States but I've never come across any parents here who do not vaccinate by choice.

One of those 'anonymous' questions on the irish mummypages facebook page a few weeks ago was from a woman considering not vaccinating. There was a load of people telling her to cop on but I'd say 1 in 5 comments were egging her on, bleating on about poisoning the baby and causing autism etc etc

I mentioned it afterwards to my 89 year old retired nurse grandmother who said that if the anti vaccine crowd had been around in her time and seen the amount of deaths and horrific lifelong conditions children were left with because of these diseases, they might think twice about refusing something that is freely available to prevent them.

Woshy

Interesting! I cloth nappy and a lot of parents that do that are pretty hippy-ish but I still haven't had any anti-vaccine views popping up in any of them I've met/spoken to.

In saying that, I now actively avoid online mummy Facebook groups/fora/websites etc (except boards!) because they were just pissing me off too much (oh the judging that goes on!) so maybe that's why it's passed me by

lazygal

sari wrote: »

It's the exact same thing judgement is judgement. She is being labelled as irresponsible and those who choose not too are also being labelled irresponsible, that will feel the same and hurt in the same way.
Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions be they positive or negative, everyone is also entitled to voice those opinions. I believe that we should just do it in a respectful way rather than nasty jibes and petty put downs.

You're entitled to.opinions but not to endanger the population by refusing to vaccinate children who'll pay the price if they contract illnesses. Some illnesses cause sterility, some threaten pregnant women etc. Opinions not backed up by facts or formed because of a liar like Wakefield are not worthy of respect.

Tasden

Its interesting that people here are berating parents for deciding not to vaccinate based on what a "playboy bunny" says. Then when they hear that a parent researches something and refers to youtube (you know proper documentaries are hosted on youtube right? Its not all kids with video cameras) they berate them for that too.

The study, yes it was found to be a load of bollocks, was originally from what they believed to be a trusted source. The very fact that it could have been true is scary. That there was ever any question surrounding the safety of vaccines. The fact that parents don't really know what is in vaccines or what it may cause is a very real fear. And people are not stupid for questioning what they choose to administer to their child.

That's not me saying they are right, people have every right to disagree with their decision and to think its wrong but to call them pig ignorant, or whatever other digs were thrown about, without knowing what research they have done or what their reason is says less about them and more about the one's saying it imo.

ancapailldorcha

Tasden wrote: »

Its interesting that people here are berating parents for deciding not to vaccinate based on what a "playboy bunny" says. Then when they hear that a parent researches something and refers to youtube (you know proper documentaries are hosted on youtube right? Its not all kids with video cameras) they berate them for that too.

Don't condescend to me, of course I know that. If I was going to cite a documentary on youtube, I would cite the documentary's name. The fact that it was on youtube is irrelevant, it's the content of the video which is.

Tasden wrote: »

The study, yes it was found to be a load of bollocks, was originally from what they believed to be a trusted source. The very fact that it could have been true is scary. That there was ever any question surrounding the safety of vaccines. The fact that parents don't really know what is in vaccines or what it may cause is a very real fear. And people are not stupid for questioning what they choose to administer to their child.

I have no idea how that study got published in one of the world's oldest and most venerable medical journals. It's baffling. In any case, there was a plethora of studies conducted following the Wakefield paper disproving his hyothesis.

Tasden wrote: »

That's not me saying they are right, people have every right to disagree with their decision and to think its wrong but to call them pig ignorant, or whatever other digs were thrown about, without knowing what research they have done or what their reason is says less about them and more about the one's saying it imo.

But there's the thing, they didn't do any research. They simply believe what was on the cover of the red tops and that was it so yes, I would call that ignorance, especially when it comes to decisions which directly and indirectly affect childrens' health. I don't expect the average person to conduct a meta-analysis for every shot their child receives but they should at least respect the credibility of the HSE at least when compared to the media.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

All of the substantiated medically verified evidence I have come across is in favour of vaccination. Therefore it is my opinion that anyone who doesn't vaccinate their children and in effect, puts not only their health at risk but also the health of other innocent people at risk, are not only ignorant but also careless and irresponsible. I'm sorry if you don't like it but if you can show me any credible evidence in favour of not vaccinating then I would be happy to reconsider my opinion.

Tasden

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Don't condescend to me, of course I know that. If I was going to cite a documentary on youtube, I would cite the documentary's name. The fact that it was on youtube is irrelevant, it's the content of the video which is.

But did they say the name of the documentary? If not, then you can't discredit it purely because its "something they saw on YouTube". Sure a tumblr post or something was posted here, how is that any more credible?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have no idea how that study got published in one of the world's oldest and most venerable medical journals. It's baffling. In any case, there was a plethora of studies conducted following the Wakefield paper disproving his hyothesis.

No smoke without fire. The very fact that a question could be raised about the connection is enough to cast doubt. They may have disproved his particular hypothesis, that doesn't prove they are 100% safe. That's the issue most parents who choose not to vaccinate have.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But there's the thing, they didn't do any research. They simply believe what was on the cover of the red tops and that was it so yes, I would call that ignorance, especially when it comes to decisions which directly and indirectly affect childrens' health. I don't expect the average person to conduct a meta-analysis for every shot their child receives but they should at least respect the credibility of the HSE at least when compared to the media.

How do you know what research they've done? Fair enough if you know what research they people you know have done, and their reasoning behind their decision, i didn't say anything about that, I'm talking about people being judgemental when they don't know what research the person has done or why they've made the decision they have.

Tasden

Cora Swift Sweatshop wrote: »

All of the substantiated medically verified evidence I have come across is in favour of vaccination. Therefore it is my opinion that anyone who doesn't vaccinate their children and in effect, puts not only their health at risk but also the health of other innocent people at risk, are not only ignorant but also careless and irresponsible. I'm sorry if you don't like it but if you can show me any credible evidence in favour of not vaccinating then I would be happy to reconsider my opinion.

In favour of vaccination, yes. Have you got credible evidence to show that vaccinations definitely do not, or will not in the future, have a negative impact on the child?

I'm not asking you to reconsider your opinion.

P_Cash

OK, I've had thoughts on a lot of levels, i just seen this thread in the latest post section and as my first born is soon due the 1 yr mmr i decided to have a look.

1 each to their own. Society would be totally different if we all agreed on everything.

2 I'm sure in the world something happened after a vaccine, and like wise I'm sure something has happened because of the lack of. To say one way is 100% the correct way is total bolx

3 it's all down to risk, and peoples perception to risk, hell we have people in the world stock piling because the end is near. Why ud want to be around is another thing.

4 my thoughts are less chance of regret after getting a vaccine than if we refused it for him. I'm relying a bit on professionals here, like i do for a lot of things not in my field.

But i wouldnt go slating anyone for having the opposite opinion,

If 2 children not vaccinated in his class in 4 yrs time could cause him harm, that's a totally different ball game.

ancapailldorcha

Tasden wrote: »

But did they say the name of the documentary? If not, then you can't discredit it purely because its "something they saw on YouTube". Sure a tumblr post or something was posted here, how is that any more credible?

This is something I'm very passionate about so I pressed it. There was no documentary, only nonsense propagated by an idiot with a laptop. She was shocked when I explained to her that someone could video our conversation and dub our voices out to make it look like we were plotting an attack.

Tasden wrote: »

No smoke without fire. The very fact that a question could be raised about the connection is enough to cast doubt. They may have disproved his particular hypothesis, that doesn't prove they are 100% safe. That's the issue most parents who choose not to vaccinate have.
.

At the time, yes. Now though we've a huge amount of high-quality evidence which proves the safety of vaccines, generally speaking of course. I'm not saying that they're 100% safe, of course not but most people experience no side effects whatsoever. The few that do tend to get mild swelling, transient headaches and so on. Serious side effects are extremely rare otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on the market.

Tasden wrote: »

How do you know what research they've done? Fair enough if you know what research they people you know have done, and their reasoning behind their decision, i didn't say anything about that, I'm talking about people being judgemental when they don't know what research the person has done or why they've made the decision they have.

Like I said above, I'm extremely passionate about this. Also, I'm an Immunologist. I've done a lot of reading on it. It's been reviewed to death as well, including a review by the Cochrane Collaboration which is the closest I'd come to saying gold standard:

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

In this day and age there really is no excuse for not doing the research. When people make decisions that could affect the lives of children, I will be as judgemental as I please. It's ignorance. 30 years ago, when you had to visit a library and pay for each article I would understand, but today, no. No excuse.

lazygal

To each their own is complete nonsense. Here immunity doesn't work unless a certain population is vaccinated. When people make bad choices like not vaccinating I will not accept that as a valid choice.

sari

Interesting piece here on peer reviewed reserach
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/04/science-hoax-peer-review-open-access

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Tasden

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is something I'm very passionate about so I pressed it. There was no documentary, only nonsense propagated by an idiot with a laptop. She was shocked when I explained to her that someone could video our conversation and dub our voices out to make it look like we were plotting an attack.

So one person not understanding how media works equates to all people who don't vaccinate being ignorant and unable to conduct proper research?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

At the time, yes. Now though we've a huge amount of high-quality evidence which proves the safety of vaccines, generally speaking of course. I'm not saying that they're 100% safe, of course not but most people experience no side effects whatsoever. The few that do tend to get mild swelling, transient headaches and so on. Serious side effects are extremely rare otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on the market.

Serious side effects, that have been proven to be as a result of the vaccination are rare, that is not the same as they don't happen or that vaccines don't cause issues we are currently unaware of. There is a tonne of medication "on the market" with rare side effects but people are still wary of taking them because of such.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Like I said above, I'm extremely passionate about this. Also, I'm an Immunologist. I've done a lot of reading on it. It's been reviewed to death as well, including a review by the Cochrane Collaboration which is the closest I'd come to saying gold standard:

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

What exactly are you using that review to prove? That to me only shows what those particular MMR vaccines used did not cause the listed issues in that sample. And it says the methodological quality of the studies made it difficult to generalise their results- did it specify what this meant when you read the study?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In this day and age there really is no excuse for not doing the research. When people make decisions that could affect the lives of children, I will be as judgemental as I please. It's ignorance. 30 years ago, when you had to visit a library and pay for each article I would understand, but today, no. No excuse.

But again, who is saying they are not researching it?

ancapailldorcha

Tasden wrote: »

So one person not understanding how media works equates to all people who don't vaccinate being ignorant and unable to conduct proper research?

I never said that.

Tasden wrote: »

Serious side effects, that have been proven to be as a result of the vaccination are rare, that is not the same as they don't happen or that vaccines don't cause issues we are currently unaware of. There is a tonne of medication "on the market" with rare side effects but people are still wary of taking them because of such.

I never said that they don't happen. I acknowledged their existence in my post.

Tasden wrote: »

What exactly are you using that review to prove? That to me only shows what those particular MMR vaccines used did not cause the listed issues in that sample. And it says the methodological quality of the studies made it difficult to generalise their results- did it specify what this meant when you read the study?

I was emphasising the safety aspect of the studies as opposed to the efficacy of the vaccine. The Cochrane Collaboration include as many studies as possible when doing a review discarding those which are of poor quality (evidence of bias, improper analysis, low samples size, etc...). Some studies are done with different methods or in different populations and so can't be treated the same as the majority.

Tasden wrote: »

But again, who is saying they are not researching it?

I'm saying that they're using the wrong sources. Newspapers are a terrible source of health info.

P_Cash

lazygal wrote: »

To each their own is complete nonsense. Here immunity doesn't work unless a certain population is vaccinated. When people make bad choices like not vaccinating I will not accept that as a valid choice.

Then unless forced no point having a discussion,

When in society is 100% of the population ever on board on anything

cyning

P_Cash wrote: »

If 2 children not vaccinated in his class in 4 yrs time could cause him harm, that's a totally different ball game.

http://www.hpsc.ie/A-Z/VaccinePreventable/Vaccination/Guidance/File,3100,en.pdf

Page 25 here. Whooping cough 80-85% effective. PCV and Meningitis C 90%. BCG up to 80%. So an unvaccinated child could certainly pass on whooping cough etc: it's why herd immunity is so important and why it drives me mental when I hear "well why do vaccinated kids gets sick if vaccines are so great?". Nobody claims vaccines are 100% effective.

lazygal

P_Cash wrote: »

Then unless forced no point having a discussion,

When in society is 100% of the population ever on board on anything

You don't need and can't have 100% on board. It's precisely because some children cannot be vaccinated that herd immunity is vital. Not vaccinating because Wakefield lied all those years ago means children who physically cannot be vaccinated are at risk. Why would anyone put their children at risk of serious complications because of one flawed study?

Tasden

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said that.

So what was your point about one person not understanding youtube in relation to those who don't vaccinate? If its just one person not doing research correctly then why are you basing your judgement of all parents who decide not to vaccinate on her inability to research properly?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said that they don't happen. I acknowledged their existence in my post.

It's their existence that leads to parents being wary. That's my point.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was emphasising the safety aspect of the studies as opposed to the efficacy of the vaccine. The Cochrane Collaboration include as many studies as possible when doing a review discarding those which are of poor quality (evidence of bias, improper analysis, low samples size, etc...). Some studies are done with different methods or in different populations and so can't be treated the same as the majority.

Honestly I still don't understand why you quoted it but that's probably just my ignorance, not saying it has no relevance, I personally just can't see it

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I I'm saying that they're using the wrong sources. Newspapers are a terrible source of health info.

But who is using the wrong sources? The one woman you know who doesn't know how youtube works? Who said they're all basing their decision on newspapers?

ancapailldorcha

Tasden wrote: »

So what was your point about one person not understanding youtube in relation to those who don't vaccinate? If its just one person not doing research correctly then why are you basing your judgement of all parents who decide not to vaccinate on her inability to research properly?

A poster earlier asked if anyone knew anti-vaccination parents. I was providing the close experience I've had.

Tasden wrote: »

It's their existence that leads to parents being wary. That's my point.

They've been blown out of all reasonable proportion principally by that paper. They don't have the same reservations about antibiotics, cough syrup, etc..

Tasden wrote: »

Honestly I still don't understand why you quoted it but that's probably just my ignorance, not saying it has no relevance, I personally just can't see it

The Cochrane Collaboration formulate research questions, in this case "Is MMR safe?" They then scan the literature for studies, discount poor quality studies and form a conclusion based on the results of the studies they select. They're an independent NGO btw.

Tasden wrote: »

But who is using the wrong sources? The one woman you know who doesn't know how youtube works? Who said they're all basing their decision on newspapers?

Type "MMR autism" into google and you get 2 news pieces in the first 3 results (#1 was Wikipedia) with a question as opposed to something akin to "link disproved".

polydactyl

pwurple wrote: »

I even encountered a locum GP who refused to vaccinate my eldest daughter for MMR. Thank feck my normal GP is a bit more clued in, and when she came back she was mortified at what the other one had said.

As a doc myself I would have reported that GP to the Irish medical council for misconduct. That's disgraceful.

lazygal wrote: »

If I got my hands on Jennie McCarthy......

Get in line

Whispered

If anti vaccination people have a toddler and there is a new baby born into the extended family, is the new baby at risk of catching something from the toddler if they spend any time together?

Is the risk any more than they might face being brought out into say a shopping centre or on public transport for example?

Baby due (4 days ago) and he or she has a cousin who is not vaccinated so I'm finding this thread fascinating!

Tasden

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A poster earlier asked if anyone knew anti-vaccination parents. I was providing the close experience I've had.

Fair enough. Still unsure why you used "youtube" to discredit her rather than the actual source since she actually showed you what it was. There are plenty good documentaries on it.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They've been blown out of all reasonable proportion principally by that paper. They don't have the same reservations about antibiotics, cough syrup, etc..

The original study has been disproven and is still blown out of proportion but it has cast doubt over the safety of vaccines generally.

Who doesn't have the same reservations about cough syrup? The one person you know? I personally don't give my child any calpol/panadol/antibiotics etc as she hasn't needed any apart from after an operation when it was recommended, and I would have reservations using them in other circumstances. I'm sure plenty parents are the same.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Cochrane Collaboration formulate research questions, in this case "Is MMR safe?" They then scan the literature for studies, discount poor quality studies and form a conclusion based on the results of the studies they select. They're an independent NGO btw.

That study was about the effectiveness of the MMR and which issues it has been proven not to cause. That to me doesn't prove anything about the safety of all vaccines.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Type "MMR autism" into google and you get 2 news pieces in the first 3 results (#1 was Wikipedia) with a question as opposed to something akin to "link disproved".

How does a google search of the link between MMR and autism prove what research parents all over the world have conducted on the safety of vaccines?

ancapailldorcha

Tasden wrote: »

Fair enough. Still unsure why you used "youtube" to discredit her rather than the actual source since she actually showed you what it was. There are plenty good documentaries on it.

Anyone can upload anything onto it. She was using a random video with no evidence behind it

Tasden wrote: »

The original study has been disproven and is still blown out of proportion but it has cast doubt over the safety of vaccines generally.

Yes, I know.

Tasden wrote: »

Who doesn't have the same reservations about cough syrup? The one person you know? I personally don't give my child any calpol/panadol/antibiotics etc as she hasn't needed any apart from after an operation when it was recommended, and I would have reservations using them in other circumstances. I'm sure plenty parents are the same.

I was speaking about people in general. Vaccines elicit a fear different to that of any other pharmaceutical intervention.

Tasden wrote: »

That study was about the effectiveness of the MMR and which issues it has been proven not to cause. That to me doesn't prove anything about the safety of all vaccines.

When did we start talking about other vaccines? The OP was about MMR specifically and the Wakefield "study".

Tasden wrote: »

How does a google search of the link between MMR and autism prove what research parents all over the world have conducted on the safety of vaccines?

What's this research then? I imagine most lay people would use google as their first port of call but perhaps you know better.