We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign

1679111216

Comments

  • #2


    And by vaccinating your child you might be putting them at risk.
    Your argument is essentially "I don't believe there are any risks whatsoever associated with vaccines, therefore anyone who thinks otherwise is a stupid person."

    I didn't say that. I can safely say though there is more scientifically proven risk attached to not getting vaccinated than there is to getting vaccinated.


  • #2


    And by vaccinating your child you might be putting them at risk.
    Your argument is essentially "I don't believe there are any risks whatsoever associated with vaccines, therefore anyone who thinks otherwise is a stupid person."

    No.

    The argument is:

    On balance there's no rational arguments against the MMR vaccination AND people that don't vaccinated their kids put their kids and society as a whole at risk.

    That's the argument.

    No medicine is without risk, but the risk here is minimal and the cost of not vaccinating because of a minimal risk is much higher than said risk.

    And you're choosing to make decisions for society, not just for yourself. Which is immoral.


  • #2


    I work as a pharmacist. I don't think it should be mandatory for people to have their children vaccinated. It is a bit totalitarian. There would circumstances where a vaccine is not suitable. Some vaccines are only available with egg in them. If a child is allergic to egg, I don't think it would be fair to make them have the vaccine

    However, I believe that vaccines are very worthwhile. It's people like "the girl against fluoride" and others with their rabble rousing and false information that endanger the public with their propaganda.

    There are plenty of vaccines that someone may not be able to use because of allergies. I'm sure that as a pharmacist you would agree that that makes it even more important for every child who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated.

    Perhaps the solution to the fact that some people have issues with making vaccination mandatory is simply to allow schools to refuse to accept unvaccinated children unless there is a valid medical reason that they cannot be vaccinated. After all, a boarding kennel insists on seeing proof of vaccination before they'll take your dog, and children are more important than dogs.


  • #2


    And by vaccinating your child you might be putting them at risk.
    Your argument is essentially "I don't believe there are any risks whatsoever associated with vaccines, therefore anyone who thinks otherwise is a stupid person."

    No. The argument is that the risks associated with vaccines are utterly negligible when compared to the risks associated with the diseases vaccines prevent, therefore anyone who can't measure it up properly and tries to argue on the basis of risk is a stupid person.


  • #2


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I think part of the problem is that the 'education' in the past was that you knew people who'd been really badly damaged by Polio or some of your kids or siblings had died of childhood diseases.

    We have the luxury these days of not encountering these things in what is one of the most developed countries on the planet. (Ireland ranks comfortably within the top 10 in 2013 and has topped the Human Development Index, 20 places ahead of the UK for example and way ahead of France).

    I think what we need is a campaign similar to what they're doing for smoking and road accidents. There are potentially huge consequences to not being immunised and it's not just some kind of minor issue if someone actually were to develop some of those diseases that were quite common in Ireland and the UK and the US right into the 1950s.

    People in developing countries have a lot more understanding of what these things are then this generation of rather privileged and pampered 'westerners' do.

    I think most people fear that their child might have bad reactions to these vaccines, and this is the reason why they are not forthcoming to have their child vaccinated. We all know there is a percentage of children that will have bad reactions to these vaccines, it's inevitable as the case usually is with a small percentage having problems, so maybe this is the case and they are afraid to take the chance incase it hits home, if you get what I mean.


  • #2


    There's no life with out risk.

    You could get up in the morning, get into the shower, fall and hit your head and die. It happens to a few people every year.

    Does that mean you don't shower or get out of bed?

    You have to decide what's a really big risk e.g. running between lanes of traffic on a motorway in the dark and what's a really small risk taking a shower.

    Human psychology tends to actually be quite poor at risk assessment sometimes when something complicated or when someone says something vaguely believable about something that they don't quite understand.


  • #2


    And by vaccinating your child you might be putting them at risk.
    Your argument is essentially "I don't believe there are any risks whatsoever associated with vaccines, therefore anyone who thinks otherwise is a stupid person."

    It's a benefit to risk ratio, you might be putting your child at risk giving them a cough bottle or aspirin, no such thing as a 100% safe medicine. It's people using nonsense science claims which have been refuted that are the idiots.


  • #2


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    How about the heel prick test that's performed on every baby born in Ireland. Do people have a problem with that? Phenlyketonuria was a problem in Ireland before this was introduced. Now the test can catch people early and prevent the nuerological symptoms that occur with the illness.

    The Supreme Court judged that parents have the right to refuse that test. BUT I think (and I might be completely wrong) now that judgement would be superceded by the changed constitution.


  • #2


    No one has ever given out that the mandatory wearing of seat-belts is against their civil liberties. Yet we all wear them and are aware of the benefits of wearing one during a crash.

    A bit simplistic, I acknowledge, but I do believe the comparison is justified.


  • #2


    mrsoundie wrote: »
    No one has ever given out that the mandatory wearing of seat-belts is against their civil liberties. Yet we all wear them and are aware of the benefits of wearing one during a crash.

    A bit simplistic, I acknowledge, but I do believe the comparison is justified.

    You're sadly wrong.

    There's many thousands who still fight seatbelt and helmet laws.

    For example:

    www.europe.wsj.com/articles/SB123733649650564223?mobile=y


  • #2


    If someone doesn't get a MMR vaccine for their child based on a choice that kid could develop measles mumps or rubella. How would that parent not be to blame for that? Letting someone do that to their child is not the society I want to live in.


  • #2


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Many of us don't find this issue hilarious.

    I never said it was hilarious. Where did I say this ?. please don't add unspoken words regarding my comment please.

    Right forget about it, back to the subject at hand .


  • #2


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    You're sadly wrong.

    There's many thousands who still fight seatbelt and helmet laws.

    And end up getting fined for not abiding by the law.

    The funny thing is, I would wager anyone in a crash who did not wear a seat-belt, would on hindsight rue that decision.


  • #2


    mrsoundie wrote: »
    No one has ever given out that the mandatory wearing of seat-belts is against their civil liberties. Yet we all wear them and are aware of the benefits of wearing one during a crash.

    A bit simplistic, I acknowledge, but I do believe the comparison is justified.
    I'm afraid thats a bad example. There actually are lots of people who do just that ie. they are more afraid of the small risk of being trapped in a burning car than the massively greater risk of bouncing around inside or outside the car.


  • #2


    mrsoundie wrote: »
    And end up getting fined for not abiding by the law.

    The funny thing is, I would wager anyone in a crash who did not wear a seat-belt, would on hindsight rue that decision.

    Again you'd be surprised; there's many an idiot that would choose to hurt themselves in "defence" of "liberty".


  • #2


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    If someone doesn't get a MMR vaccine for their child based on a choice that kid could develop measles mumps or rubella. How would that parent not be to blame for that? Letting someone do that to their child is not the society I want to live in.

    Eddy, the law at this time has no right to dictate force untoward any parent regarding vaccinations.

    Now, unless this law is changed just like it was in the united states where they knock on your door and say... we are here to vaccinate your child...the school told us that you were non-compliant in doing so last week, so we are here now to force inoculate your child, if you refuse to allow us to do this, you will be sent a summons to appear in court.


  • #2


    Education, open debate. They may come a time when a vaccine is not suitable. Everybody thought Thalodomide was a wonder drug when it first came out.

    At this moment in time, I would recommend that parents get their children vaccinated. However, things can change in the future.

    When that vaccine becomes not suitable we'll make another one. On that not can you guess what else makes vaccines not suitable? That's right un-vaccinated children. These children act as reservoirs for disease thereby allowing these diseases to mutate. This means that different strains could arise making the vaccine useless.

    No one was forced to take Thalidomide which was used (wrongly) for morning sickness. This was also damaging because of the sterochemistry involved in one version.


  • #2


    zenno wrote: »
    Eddy, the law at this time has no right to dictate force untoward any parent regarding vaccinations.

    Now, unless this law is changed just like it was in the united states where they knock on your door and say... we are here to vaccinate your child...the school told us that you were non-compliant in doing so last week, so we are here now to force inoculate your child, if you refuse to allow us to do this, you will be sent a summons to appear in court.

    How about refusing un-vaccinated children school thereby preventing those who can't get vaccinated due to allergy ect from getting ill?


  • #2


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    There's no life with out risk.

    You could get up in the morning, get into the shower, fall and hit your head and die. It happens to a few people every year.

    Does that mean you don't shower or get out of bed?

    You have to decide what's a really big risk e.g. running between lanes of traffic on a motorway in the dark and what's a really small risk taking a shower.

    Human psychology tends to actually be quite poor at risk assessment sometimes when something complicated or when someone says something vaguely believable about something that they don't quite understand.

    Mothers are very attached to their child as we all know, so they are more suspicious to all kinds of things, they don't take chances.


  • #2


    Calibos wrote: »
    I'm afraid thats a bad example. There actually are lots of people who do just that ie. they are more afraid of the small risk of being trapped in a burning car than the massively greater risk of bouncing around inside or outside the car.

    Ok, I do concede there are people who think like that, and it highlights the point that the reward outweighs the risk.


  • #2


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    How about refusing un-vaccinated children school thereby preventing those who can't get vaccinated due to allergy ect from getting ill?

    In america that probably wouldn't be a problem, but here in Ireland, it would be on the grounds of discrimination, so I can't see it working, but I understand your point.


  • #2


    Unvaccinated kids attending crèche/pre school are a potential risk to younger babies
    MMR is not given until 12 months so a unvaccinated older child could pass it on to a baby under this age
    Children should not be given the free school year unless they produce a vaccination cert
    That will sort it


  • #2


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    If someone doesn't get a MMR vaccine for their child based on a choice that kid could develop measles mumps or rubella. How would that parent not be to blame for that? Letting someone do that to their child is not the society I want to live in.


    The important word there Eddy being "could" develop measles, mumps or rubella. There's no guarantee that without the vaccine they WILL go on to develop measles, mumps or rubella. Of course the parent would be to blame IF their child developed these diseases after not being vaccinated against them, but it'd take some balls to stand there and say to them "I told you so!". I wouldn't want to live in a society that forced people to do something that they believed was not in the best interests of their child, no matter if I'd a virtual mountain of scientific evidence that contradicted their belief. All I could do is present them with that information and it is still their choice. I have informed them. After that, it is up to the parent.

    steddyeddy wrote: »
    How about refusing un-vaccinated children school thereby preventing those who can't get vaccinated due to allergy ect from getting ill?


    A nice idea in principle, but then you are denying the child a right to education. That would only continue the cycle of ignorance. If you take something as simple as head lice. It's fcuking rampant among school children every year, but all the school can do is advise that the parents keep the child out of school until the infection clears up. They cannot force the parents to keep the child out of school.


  • #2


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The important word there Eddy being "could" develop measles, mumps or rubella. There's no guarantee that without the vaccine they WILL go on to develop measles, mumps or rubella. Of course the parent would be to blame IF their child developed these diseases after not being vaccinated against them, but it'd take some balls to stand there and say to them "I told you so!". I wouldn't want to live in a society that forced people to do something that they believed was not in the best interests of their child, no matter if I'd a virtual mountain of scientific evidence that contradicted their belief. All I could do is present them with that information and it is still their choice. I have informed them. After that, it is up to the parent.





    A nice idea in principle, but then you are denying the child a right to education. That would only continue the cycle of ignorance. If you take something as simple as head lice. It's fcuking rampant among school children every year, but all the school can do is advise that the parents keep the child out of school until the infection clears up. They cannot force the parents to keep the child out of school.


    Eh again no.

    You have no right to endanger your neighbour. At all.

    If you refuse you're children should be vaccinated against your will.

    Then they don't miss any school.


  • #2


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    A nice idea in principle, but then you are denying the child a right to education. That would only continue the cycle of ignorance. If you take something as simple as head lice. It's fcuking rampant among school children every year, but all the school can do is advise that the parents keep the child out of school until the infection clears up. They cannot force the parents to keep the child out of school.

    Untrue, as they could be homeschooled. You're right about the cycle of ignorance though.


  • #2


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Eh again no.

    You have no right to endanger your neighbour. At all.

    If you refuse you're children should be vaccinated against your will.

    Then they don't miss any school.

    This is your opinion only, it is outside the boundaries of rules regarding this issue in relation to school policy and government law.


  • #2


    Vaccines are not the cause of Autism but they can without question lead to a child developing Autism.

    Gut damage* is the most common denominator with those that develop an ASD and so finding just what it is that is causing that damage is were the majority of the current research is now focused and at present, the jury is out on just what is precisely responsible for that damage, just as the jury is also out on what the proportional number those children which develop an ASD which vaccines are responsible for.




    *
    The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
    The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
    Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
    Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
    Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
    Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
    The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
    Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
    Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
    Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
    Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
    Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
    Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
    Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
    Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
    Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
    American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
    Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.


  • #2


    zenno wrote: »
    This is your opinion only, it is outside the boundaries of rules regarding this issue in relation to school policy and government law.

    Of course it's not law, but it's also the best possible option as no eligible children should be allowed to go unvaccinated.


  • #2


    Vaccines are not the cause of Autism but they can without question lead to a child developing Autism.

    Gut damage* is the most common denominator with those that develop an ASD and so finding just what it is that is causing that damage is were the majority of the current research is now focused and at present, the jury is out on just what is precisely responsible for that damage, just as the jury is also out on what the proportional number those children which develop an ASD which vaccines are responsible for.




    *
    The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
    The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
    Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
    Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
    Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
    Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
    The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
    Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
    Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
    Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
    Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
    Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
    Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
    Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
    Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
    Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
    American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
    Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.

    As yes, this common list, which has been thoroughly debunked and which has no evidence of any connection.

    I guess the copy and paste attack from the fringers has begun.

    This has been widely discussed and heres a good debunking of it:

    leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2013/05/07/studies-supporting-andrew-wakefield/

    "...after 15 years, we are offered 28 studies, none of which supports the MMR-enterocolitis-autism hypothesis. It is not surprising that over this period Wakefield has failed to win the support of a single paediatrician, paediatric gastroenterologist, child psychiatrist or autism specialist in England."


  • #2


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    As yes, this common list, which has been thoroughly debunked and which has no evidence of any connection.

    Connection with what? Did you even read my post?

    Obviously not.


Society & Culture