Vaccines and autism

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.

polydactyl

Whispered wrote: »

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!

Well the toddler is more at risk of having and passing on the things that they were not vaccinated against eg measles and mumps which would be very dangerous for a small baby. If they are healthy and well it should be fine though.

Sligo1

Tasden, I think the main point of contention here is that parents are making the decision not to vaccinate their child due to unfounded claims and opinions. If these parents could cite a valid research study or some form of research based evidence that could back up their claims that vaccinations are unsafe (or whatever their claim is), than I think people would perhaps listen a bit more and not be so quick to judge.

HOWEVER, I have yet to see ANY studies that serve to back up these ridiculous claims. I don't think anyone here is giving out about parents who chose not to vaccinate their children due to very valid reasons eg. If the child is immunosuppressed etc.

Herd immunity here is paramount.

Tasden

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

It seemed to me you were making assumptions that the parents opposed to vaccines aren't concerned about other pharmaceutical intervention. But fair enough.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

People were giving out about parents who choose not to vaccinate. But ok fine even if we limit the discussion to MMR vaccines mentioned in op, its not always due to the link to autism anymore. The initial scare of the autism link, which you have already accepted, cast doubt over it's safety. That doesn't mean every parent is afraid it will cause autism. They are aware now that it may be unsafe, that there is a lot we don't know. They cannot guarantee it won't cause problems. That does not mean parents are still assuming it will cause autism.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

Again, refer to my previous point, autism is not always their primary concern so a google search for the MMR and links to such may not be what they are basing their decision on. And I don't know why you think a lay person can't google scholar "risks associated with X vaccine" or something similar. Or just discard the links in google that aren't credible. I'm not claiming to "know better" than anybody. That's exactly my point. I'm not claiming anything about anyone.

lazygal

Whispered wrote: »

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!

The number one thing you can do to protect baby is breastfeed. Especially colostrum. It is liquid gold for babies and you'll have passed on some of your immunity in utero. I was advised to get the whooping cough vaccine while pregnant for this reason. And don't be afraid to tell people to stay away if you're worried. And do not let ANYONE with a cold sore of any description near the baby. Babies have died because of exposure to a cold sore.

Tasden

Sligo1 wrote: »

Tasden, I think the main point of contention here is that parents are making the decision not to vaccinate their child due to unfounded claims and opinions. If these parents could cite a valid research study or some form of research based evidence that could back up their claims that vaccinations are unsafe (or whatever their claim is), than I think people would perhaps listen a bit more and not be so quick to judge.

HOWEVER, I have yet to see ANY studies that serve to back up these ridiculous claims. I don't think anyone here is giving out about parents who chose not to vaccinate their children due to very valid reasons eg. If the child is immunosuppressed etc.

Herd immunity here is paramount.

I know exactly why people need to vaccinate their kids. I never questioned that. If you read my posts I never once questioned why vaccines are needed or the very real risks associated with non vaccination of kids. I am completely in agreement with everyone else on this thread about the need for vaccinations.


I just don't agree with anybody judging and insulting another parents decision without knowing their reasoning behind it. And even more so, I disagree with people making assumptions and generalisations about them purely on one decision they have made.

You're right there is very little to support some people's claims, but in some cases there are none refuting them either. That's their problem. And that was my point. Fear of the unknown/unproven where questions and very real concerns have arisen previously. Its this attitude of them being hippie whackjobs that have an irrational fear that I'm opposed to. Nobody knows what every parent's fear/concern/issue is in relation to vaccines or what research they have done prior to making their decision.

That's my opinion on the matter,that calling them pig ignorant or judging them without knowing them reflects badly on the people doing the judging, not the parents in question. That was all i said. Never commented on the vaccine itself or agreed/disagreed with their decision not to vaccinate.

sari

Tasden if I could thank your post a thousand times i would. A voice of reason and non jodgement

The Black Oil

A lot of this is how you want to frame the debate. With a 24/7 TV broadcast/opinion environment saturated with celebrities that debate is likely to be quite poor. You have to filter out a lot of noise.

The Jenny McCarthy situation is problematic for a number of reasons. Not because of her background, but because she essentially because she was the public face of the anti-vacc camp and in a sense, the broader 'cure', 'recovery' narrative. She helped to whip up sensationalist media coverage and in ways she feeds into amongst the worst of today's 'I clicked on this website, therefore, I'm right', culture. Throw in some quasi-conspiracy nonsense about the CDC, 'big pharma', quackery and you've got the makings of a not so great discourse.

She is not entirely to blame, of course, but I do feel her input is quite unhelpful as it somehow became about her, rather than the issue.

Sligo1

sari wrote: »

A voice of reason and non jodgement

I would consider myself quite a non-judgemental person (I think ). However, the thing with the whole vaccination debacle is that not only does it affect the anti-vaccination parent's children... It also affects mine. I think that is why people feel so passionate about the debate. And yes perhaps judgemental... But for one of the best reasons there is... Because my babies are directly being affected by these other peoples decisions. Decisions which are being made because of, as for example Tasden stated... Fear of the unknown etc. Well then these parents should inform themselves! read and read and read some more. I'm not talking about stupid unfounded articles... But valid resources with good reliable internal and external validity and reliability. Studies that use statistics and controls and randomisation if at all ethically possible.

It is very easy for one to say don't he judgmental... However, it would be extremely hard to find one parent whose newborn or immunologically suppressed child has contracted a preventable disease and died or become extremely ill due to little jimmy sitting beside them whose parents chose not to vaccinate him for whatever reason (obviously not for legitimate reasons I mean), who would not be absolutely livid with little jimmys parents. In this situation I wouldn't give a flying f*ck that they were "scared of the unknown". My baby has just died because of them! Now if that makes me judgmental i couldn't give a twaddle. It makes me livid even thinking about it tbh.

lazygal

That's it, it affects everyone when people decide not to vaccinate. It affects newborns who are too young to vaccinate, for example. A new born boy can be left sterile because of someone else's choice to decline vaccines. So it's not something I can be live or let live about or accept that others just choose to parent differently. It is about the risks to everyone posed by the choices others make.

Tasden

Sligo1 wrote: »

I would consider myself quite a non-judgemental person (I think ). However, the thing with the whole vaccination debacle is that not only does it affect the anti-vaccination parent's children... It also affects mine. I think that is why people feel so passionate about the debate. And yes perhaps judgemental... But for one of the best reasons there is... Because my babies are directly being affected by these other peoples decisions. Decisions which are being made because of, as for example Tasden stated... Fear of the unknown etc. Well then these parents should inform themselves! read and read and read some more. I'm not talking about stupid unfounded articles... But valid resources with good reliable internal and external validity and reliability. Studies that use statistics and controls and randomisation if at all ethically possible.

It is very easy for one to say don't he judgmental... However, it would be extremely hard to find one parent whose newborn or immunologically suppressed child has contracted a preventable disease and died or become extremely ill due to little jimmy sitting beside them whose parents chose not to vaccinate him for whatever reason (obviously not for legitimate reasons I mean), who would not be absolutely livid with little jimmys parents. In this situation I wouldn't give a flying f*ck that they were "scared of the unknown". My baby has just died because of them! Now if that makes me judgmental i couldn't give a twaddle. It makes me livid even thinking about it tbh.

That was my whole point, there aren't enough studies like that done and those studies they do read don't refute their claims or rule out enough possibilities. They prove what is already known not what is unknown. (Obviously) And its the assumption that these parents don't research these things that was irritating me in the thread. The assumption that they're too stupid to make an informed decision. Or to research such an important issue.
That's not the same as saying they're right in the decision they made. Or that I agree with their decision. It wasn't the judgement of their decision that I had a problem with, it was the insults and generalisations about them as people based on their decision and the assumption that it was made out of "pig ignorance". People are entitled to their opinions obviously and they can judge all they like (we all do) but the generalisations and assumptions and insults- imo- were uncalled for because unless you know them personally then you don't know why they made that decision or even how much more they may actually know about vaccines than you from researching the issue.