6-in-1 vaccinations and autesim links?

Ziphius · 27-09-2012 12:41AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

The children who don't suffer from lifelong complications from preventable diseases.

I'm actually dumbfounded that people -- parents! -- can't see the value in this.

Ziphius · 27-09-2012 12:55AM

Fri.Day wrote: »

Everyone to their own, i`d be against it for the reasons that i don`t think there`s much diptheria, hepatitus B or polio around my parish.
Probably more prevalent in Africa and Asian countries with less sanitation.

Jesus Christ! I am actually stunned. Actually stunned. I can't understand this. I thought this was a troll at first but if you are serious this something so selfish and so irresponsible that I cannot even fathom it.

27-09-2012 12:59AM

Fri.Day wrote: »

Everyone to their own, i`d be against it for the reasons that i don`t think there`s much diptheria, hepatitus B or polio around my parish.
Probably more prevalent in Africa and Asian countries with less sanitation.

Sounds like a form of "security through obscurity" - never a good thing.

Ziphius · 27-09-2012 01:02AM

Karsini wrote: »

Sounds like a form of "security through obscurity" - never a good thing.

I'm unfamiliar with the term. How do you feel it applies here?

27-09-2012 01:07AM

Ziphius wrote: »

I'm unfamiliar with the term. How do you feel it applies here?

"A system relying on security through obscurity may have theoretical or actual security vulnerabilities, but its owners or designers believe that if the flaws are not known, then attackers will be unlikely to find them"

You could apply that here. Deciding not to vaccinate because you feel that the infection is uncommon. If enough people do it, it becomes less obscure and therefore more likely to become a threat.

As mentioned above, shortly after the Wakefield papers, vaccination rates plummeted. Measles epidemics became much more widespread than they had been for many years.

Ziphius · 27-09-2012 01:10AM

Karsini wrote: »

"A system relying on security through obscurity may have theoretical or actual security vulnerabilities, but its owners or designers believe that if the flaws are not known, then attackers will be unlikely to find them"

You could apply that here. Deciding not to vaccinate because you feel that the infection is uncommon. If enough people do it, it becomes less obscure and therefore more likely to become a threat.

As mentioned above, shortly after the Wakefield papers, vaccination rates plummeted. Measles epidemics became much more widespread than they had been for many years.

I see. I think you're right. Thank you for the explanation.

gctest50 · 27-09-2012 01:26AM

Wouldn't Fri.day just be playing the herd game ?
Safe-ish as long as everyone else immunises their child ?

Ziphius · 27-09-2012 01:36AM

gctest50 wrote: »

Wouldn't Fri.day just be playing the herd game ?
Safe-ish as long as everyone else immunises their child ?

Well yes, that's why it's selfish. She's also hugely increased the risk of her own children developing potentially fatal diseases.

endacl · 27-09-2012 01:36AM

Vaccinate your child. The only place you won't get this advice is over on the Conspiracy Theories forum. That in itself speaks volumes. There is no credible link to autism. There isn't even a non-credible link to autism. All there is are headlines. Who would you trust to give you medical advice? A doctor with a degree in immunology, or a 'journalist' with a 'degree' in mediajournalosity...

If in doubt, find a single person alive today suffering the appalling after-effects of smallpox.

Not vaccinating spreads all kinds of nasty conditions, not least among them being stupidity.

Science rocks. When did it become sensible to ignore knowledge, evidence and experience....?

endacl · 27-09-2012 01:38AM

Ziphius wrote: »

Jesus Christ! I am actually stunned. Actually stunned. I can't understand this. I thought this was a troll at first but if you are serious this something so selfish and so irresponsible that I cannot even fathom it.

To paraphrase Fianna Fail...... How do I thank this early and often. It deserves more than one.

Jimoslimos · 27-09-2012 01:59AM

Fri.Day wrote: »

Everyone to their own, i`d be against it for the reasons that i don`t think there`s much diptheria, hepatitus B or polio around my parish.
Probably more prevalent in Africa and Asian countries with less sanitation.

Fri.Day wrote: »

This also concerns me as the mother of a precious little boy I have seen autism being most prevalent in boys in my dealings with kids through my job.
I love my little boy way too much to vaccinate him, just in case he might get a rare virus/disease, just scare tactics as I see them, not to mention who benefits financially from these "products"

Attitudes like this confirm to me that humans are notoriously bad at judging risk. We partake in all manner of risky activities, smoking, drinking, unprotected sex, etc., yet it is the unseen, usually statistically negligible ones that make us sit up - any Daily Mail article on the latest cause of cancer is testament to this. Heck, your child is probably at more risk of being seriously injured or killed in a RTA by being driven multiple times to/from the clinic for separate vaccinations than any adverse reaction.

SandyRamp wrote: »

I would advise OP that you do a bit of background research yourself, both on the vaccines and regarding your own family history. Discuss your worries with your GP, but remember it is your decision at the end of the day, and what you feel is best for your baby.

I'm all for the general public being fully informed on the treatments they and their children receive, however people seem to reckon that research involves getting 'balanced' viewpoints of pro-immunisation (medics) and the quacks on the anti side. It really isn't.

27-09-2012 03:16AM

Fri.Day wrote: »

The OP asks if we parents had similar concerns and yes I do.

This also concerns me as the mother of a precious little boy I have seen autism being most prevalent in boys in my dealings with kids through my job.
I love my little boy way too much to vaccinate him, just in case he might get a rare virus/disease, just scare tactics as I see them, not to mention who benefits financially from these "products"

If you would rather your child have a physical disability from "your perspective" by all means go ahead, but I pity that your child child having such a illinformed parent.

avalon68 · 27-09-2012 03:49AM

Fri.Day wrote: »

Everyone to their own, i`d be against it for the reasons that i don`t think there`s much diptheria, hepatitus B or polio around my parish.
Probably more prevalent in Africa and Asian countries with less sanitation.

The reason there isnt much around is that people are vaccinated......these diseases re-emerge when people fail to vaccinate and "herd immunity" levels drop.

RobFowl · 27-09-2012 09:14AM

Mod Note

I understand this is an emotive issue where people have strong feelings but please avoid personal comments and attacks. Also please try to post evidence rather than opinions when backing up your position

MrTsSnickers · 27-09-2012 09:57AM

Ziphius wrote: »

I'm actually dumbfounded that people -- parents! -- can't see the value in this.

For the love of jebus, don't tar us all with the same brush. I find it absolutely astounding that people want to put their children's futures at risk, because they choose to believe some quack in the daily mail.

I can't find a link at the minute, but I remember in college a few years ago, a mass email was sent around, saying that there was X amount of cases of meningitis and mumps reported to the University - everyone be vigilant etc. As for this b****ks of "my child won't be exposed to those nasty diseases", what happens if they are in a class that many parents have decided not to immunise? Oh no, a family may go on holidays, all their kids are immunised but they may bring some thing back to your parish.

In my view it's down right irresponsible to take the chance with your child's life and future. Now, another poster had a family history or reactions to the immunisation schedule. Fine, they took appropriate steps to make sure their kids were immunised in a safe environment, where, should something go wrong, there were professionals on hand to deal with it.

I have this conversation at least twice a year with people who are going down the line of not wanting to vaccinate their kids. This is the one subject I do no hesitate to strongly imply that they are stupid and taking an enormous risk.

RobFowl · 27-09-2012 10:08AM

RobFowl wrote: »

Mod Note

I understand this is an emotive issue where people have strong feelings but please avoid personal comments and attacks. Also please try to post evidence rather than opinions when backing up your position

Am posting this once more then will have to start editing/deleting and issuing infractions

mickydcork · 27-09-2012 10:27AM

avalon68 wrote: »

The reason there isnt much around is that people are vaccinated......these diseases re-emerge when people fail to vaccinate and "herd immunity" levels drop.

Thanks for backing up my point that I have already made.

Maybe read the full thread?

Ziphius · 27-09-2012 10:37AM

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

For the love of jebus, don't tar us all with the same brush. I find it absolutely astounding that people want to put their children's futures at risk, because they choose to believe some quack in the daily mail.

Well, I didn't literally mean all people or all parents can't see the value of vaccination, just some. I think we pretty much agree completely on this issue.

pjproby · 27-09-2012 10:53AM

I was an inpatient in a hospital a few years ago and in an adjoining ward, a male teenager had suffered from measles which eventually affected his brain.
His entire life was ruined by measles.

avalon68 · 27-09-2012 11:58AM

mickydcork wrote: »

Thanks for backing up my point that I have already made.

Maybe read the full thread?

<snip> Maybe, just maybe, as an immunologist and virologist with an extensive background in the area I feel it's a point worth making again. :rolleyes:

mickydcork · 27-09-2012 12:16PM

avalon68 wrote: »

<snip> Maybe, just maybe, as an immunologist and virologist with an extensive background in the area I feel it's a point worth making again. :rolleyes:

Usually it's just internet courtesy to quote someone who's point you are repeating.

<snip>.

endacl · 27-09-2012 01:49PM

RobFowl wrote: »

Mod Note

Also please try to post evidence rather than opinions when backing up your position

That's all very well, but what evidence can the anti-vaccination brigade provide? Your well intentioned Mod Note may be unfair in this regard...

6-in-1 vaccinations and autesim links?

Comments