Vaccines question

Sligo1

And sorry mods, but before I do get a warning I will bow out of this and not post again. This selfish sh*te really rubs me up the wrong way. And I prob have nothing else to contribute now I've actually figured out this last posters morals. If it was antivac I could contribute. But who on earth can contribute anything else to this set of values the last poster has I don't know...

Orion

OK Let's tone this down a bit. There's no need to get so personal.

SF12

mulbot wrote: »

My reply was about being exposed to pathogens,perhaps i did develop natural immunity,,

As was mine. You appeared to be using the fact that your family didn't have vaccinations, developed measles (and in your case, you didn't develop the measles despite the fact that people around you had them), and are now healthy adults, as part of an argument for not vaccinating. My point was that it proves nothing really.

On a personal level, yes you can make whatever choice you like as regards what you believe is best for your children. But you have to realise that the decision not to vaccinate also has a societal impact. Therefore, you may, at some point in the future, have to bear responsibility for the fact that your decision about what you believed was best for your child might result in preventable suffering by your child, or cause of the spread of an easily preventable disease among others.

This argument is going round in circles at this stage. The decision not to vaccinate seems to often come down to what people perceive to be the risk for their children, rather than actual scientific fact.

Satori Rae

A question to mulbot do you have daughters and would you let them get a vaccination to protect them against HPV?


Oh and this is yet another interesting read http://www.thejournal.ie/vaccinations-should-you-get-them-1937370-Feb2015/

mulbot

Sligo1 wrote: »

I actually thought from the majority of your posts you were antivac. seems like I was completely wrong.

<deleted by mod> But I honestly don't know how you can live with yourself. "My children" My my my.. God you are a selfish human being.

No i stated that vaccinations were a personal choice and that i had no negative feelings towards people who did vaccinate- I've no idea what you wrote that was removed but obviously it tells alot about you as a person if you resort to that

mulbot

SF12 wrote: »

As was mine. You appeared to be using the fact that your family didn't have vaccinations, developed measles (and in your case, you didn't develop the measles despite the fact that people around you had them), and are now healthy adults, as part of an argument for not vaccinating. My point was that it proves nothing really.

On a personal level, yes you can make whatever choice you like as regards what you believe is best for your children. But you have to realise that the decision not to vaccinate also has a societal impact. Therefore, you may, at some point in the future, have to bear responsibility for the fact that your decision about what you believed was best for your child might result in preventable suffering by your child, or cause of the spread of an easily preventable disease among others.

This argument is going round in circles at this stage. The decision not to vaccinate seems to often come down to what people perceive to be the risk for their children, rather than actual scientific fact.

Yes it is,maybe thread needs closing or a different direction- also,what i've said a few times now is that i've looked at scientific facts from both sides of this. My decisions then are based on the risks involved from both sides. Ok so i think it's clear where i stand,can this thread stay civil please,even if people disagree

mulbot

Satori Rae wrote: »

A question to mulbot do you have daughters and would you let them get a vaccination to protect them against HPV?


Oh and this is yet another interesting read http://www.thejournal.ie/vaccinations-should-you-get-them-1937370-Feb2015/

Yes i do-i would consider it as it's given at a much later stage in life

Sligo1

mulbot wrote: »

I've no idea what you wrote that was removed but obviously it tells alot about you as a person if you resort to that

Not really. The mod actually left the bit there which I thought was probably harshest. The bit that was taken out just said that you were basically reliant on other peoples immunity and you might reassess the situation if you weren't able to freeload off everybody else. That's all. Don't think saying that makes me a terrible person at all. Anyways, like I said, I'm out .

Satori Rae

mulbot wrote: »

Yes i do-i would consider it as it's given at a much later stage in life

So you would protect your daughters with a vaccine against developing cervical cancer (a vaccine that is pretty dam new compared to the other ones and you would trust in this only one why?) and yet you wouldn't consider protecting them against measles, polio or rubella and other basic things that could kill them? With vaccines with years upon years of trials and science behind them? And with every health organization behind them?

And not to nock the Hpv vaccine that is an amazing vaccine!!

Just because of a age difference of administration?
So if your children where a bit older and if an outbreak of meningitis B or Polio happened would you get your children done then if you where lucky and they did not catch it first? Or try hide and ride it out with them?

Now you say you may have immunity from Measles anyway by not picking it up of a family members when they had it.

In order to know if you have natural immunity for sure (considering you have had no MMR what so ever) You would need a laboratory test with evidence of a laboratory confirmation to make a claim as such. Which would be an interesting test do to in general.

Even when I linked a article by the CDC stating the risks and dangers of not vaccinating your children. You would still stand behind not vaccinating them why? What would be your exact reasons religious reasons or ingredients?

Because age should not come into it there is a reason why children get vaccinated at certain ages. Also what age would you consider giving the hpv vaccine to your daughter?

tinkerbell

I am interested to know how some anti-vax parents could live with themselves if their child got a preventable disease like measles and either (a) died or (b) was left permanently damaged by deafness, brain damage, etc. I'd imagine that once the child was old enough they sure as hell wouldn't be thanking their parents for not vaccinating them when they were children.

And this whole "making a personal decision" rubbish is exactly that - rubbish. How can anybody who is not a medical professional expert in vaccinations and those particular diseases decide if a vaccine is in their child's "best interests". Oh wait a minute, you've read up a few bits and pieces on the Internet. I don't go around volunteering to fly an Airbus 380 because I had a go at a flight simulation game years ago. I leave that to the experts who are trained in the field. It's like someone else posted on the previous page - parents should pay more attention to the diseases that vaccinations prevent rather than solely focusing on the vaccines.

Vaccines should not be a choice, they should be mandatory unless you have a compromised immune system.

pwurple

I've been reading up on risks and the thinking behind how we assess them and make choices. It's actually a little bit weird what happens when we puny humans start concentrating on small risks and trying to eliminate them.

There are reams of case studies and examples of the management of companies, where there was some edict sent down from the top management, that small errors were not going to be tolerated. 3 minor risk identifications and you explain yourself to your boss. In these cases, people successfully concentrated on getting the minor errors minimised, but some BIG GIANT errors were completely missed, because they were concentrating on the small ones.

I think it's the same with a lot of things, but it's particularly clear with vaccines. If you concentrate a huge amount of your mental energy on the tiny risk issues, and how many of these tiny risks there are, you are very likely to be distracted from the big risks, and the big picture.

mulbot

Satori Rae wrote: »

So you would protect your daughters with a vaccine against developing cervical cancer (a vaccine that is pretty dam new compared to the other ones and you would trust in this only one why?) and yet you wouldn't consider protecting them against measles, polio or rubella and other basic things that could kill them? With vaccines with years upon years of trials and science behind them? And with every health organization behind them?

And not to nock the Hpv vaccine that is an amazing vaccine!!

Just because of a age difference of administration?
So if your children where a bit older and if an outbreak of meningitis B or Polio happened would you get your children done then if you where lucky and they did not catch it first? Or try hide and ride it out with them?

Now you say you may have immunity from Measles anyway by not picking it up of a family members when they had it.

In order to know if you have natural immunity for sure (considering you have had no MMR what so ever) You would need a laboratory test with evidence of a laboratory confirmation to make a claim as such. Which would be an interesting test do to in general.

Even when I linked a article by the CDC stating the risks and dangers of not vaccinating your children. You would still stand behind not vaccinating them why? What would be your exact reasons religious reasons or ingredients?

Because age should not come into it there is a reason why children get vaccinated at certain ages. Also what age would you consider giving the hpv vaccine to your daughter?

I said i would consider it yes-i have considered other vaccines you mentioned. There was no more information in that link than what I've read before so obviously I think same. I think the recommended age for that vaccine is around 11-12. Also I'm not into religion at all,don't know why you would presume that,so no reasons or ingredients from that line of thinking-Now there is no point in us going around in circles again here,you know my position,i know your position,we disagree..

Noo

So if its not religious reasons or the ingredients in the vaccine then what is your reasoning for being ok with an 11-12 year getting an injection but not an infant at the time its most beneficial to them?

mulbot

Noo wrote: »

So if its not religious reasons or the ingredients in the vaccine then what is your reasoning for being ok with an 11-12 year getting an injection but not an infant at the time its most beneficial to them?

I didn't say ok,i said i would consider it-

Noo

Ok why would you consider it and not consider the others?

Also these are genuine questions, not having a go at you type questions

mulbot

Noo wrote: »

Ok why would you consider it and not consider the others?

Also these are genuine questions, not having a go at you type questions

Because of the age differences when vaccines are given,i mentioned about that earlier in this thread

tinkerbell

mulbot wrote: »

Because of the age differences when vaccines are given,i mentioned about that earlier in this thread

So you're happy for your children to be exposed to potentially fatal diseases when they are at their most vulnerable (less than a year old) but quite happy to vaccinate them once they are teenagers? Ok :rolleyes:

I know you are not totally anti-vax but you may as well be when it comes to young babies so my question in my earlier post still stands - how could you live with yourself if something happened to your children due to not following the recommended vaccination schedule because you think you know better than the World Health Organisation? And if permanent damage was done as a result of contracting one of those deadly diseases? Your children would not be thanking you then. Sometimes parents need saving from themselves.

I was gonna also ask how you would feel if your children contracted measles and then passed it onto some innocent newborn baby but wait a minute, you said you only consider the "best interests of your children" (which is a ridiculous notion as it stands because you are putting them in danger of contracting a deadly disease) so you are giving the middle finger to everybody else. This type of selfish careless attitude just disgusts me. Fair enough if you don't want to vaccinate your kids, but until you do, then you should keep them away from general society until they are vaccinated. But that is not gonna work either because children need to be able to socialise. So we are back to square one again which means all children who can be vaccinated, should be.

And this argument of "it's the age the vaccine is given" is completely nonsense. You would vaccinate a teenager for disease X, at which point even if they caught the disease, they are far more likely to pull through it because a teenager / adult is much stronger than a newborn baby. So you indirectly think that a newborn baby would just be able to get on with it if they caught disease X? Babies are the most vulnerable in society because they are SO NEW to society. They are at huge risk of catching bugs and not being able to fight them off, unlike say a teenager who has got a developed immune system. So this whole "wait til they are older" argument is stupid - you should be happy for your children never to get any vaccine if that's the case (even when they are teenagers). Because sure if they can cope with measles exposure when they are a year old then they sure as hell can cope with with it when they are teenagers :rolleyes:

And if you have a daughter I'm sure she'd be pretty pissed off if she decides to have kids and then realises at her booking appointment that she has no rubella immunity and will spend the 9 months of her pregnancy worrying about possible exposure to it and the effects it would have on her unborn baby.

SF12

tinkerbell wrote: »

And this whole "making a personal decision" rubbish is exactly that - rubbish. How can anybody who is not a medical professional expert in vaccinations and those particular diseases decide if a vaccine is in their child's "best interests". Oh wait a minute, you've read up a few bits and pieces on the Internet. .

In many ways, the internet is our worst enemy these days. I made a point a few posts (pages!) back about how people find, read and interpret information. A few Youtube videos, a couple of random articles and many people suddenly feel they are experts on many topics. To truly research something to the nth degree, particularly a topic like this, requires far more effort and time and a good understanding of statistics and how studies are constructed.

Most people don't have that depth of understanding to be really making an informed choice.

As for the point about our concept of risk, it's all down to perception. We can support the side we LIKE to think is right by reading articles that support it (ie, if you are anti-vaccine, you are more inclined to find articles that will support you in that view). If you know anything about risk assessment you will know that there is generally a personal risk (which is what Mulbot is talking about in mentioning personal choices), but there is also a societal risk factor, which is being completely ignored.

In this case it truly is a personal factor, because it really doesn't take into account the potential effects on the kids themselves - their lives down the line, along with the effects on those around them in society. As someone else said, you'd rather a minute of injection pain and maybe 24 hours of a temperature etc, than a lifetime of increased risk and potential serious damage to themselves and those around them. Every antibiotic has side effects and the risk is there that you might develop them, but we would take them no bother (and in the event that measles did develop, would probably administer them to a child without a second thought) - but for some reason the minor risks associated with a vaccine become the reason for refusing it.

Sorry, that was long winded and complicated, but honestly, I just don't understand why you wouldn't vaccinate. It makes absolutely no sense on any level. However I'm not going to get into it anymore, since I think it's been well and truly covered at this stage. If you chose not to vaccinate, you are then responsible for your actions, but your actions do not only affect you - they affect your child and those around you.

Jerrica

Unfortunately at this point in the discussion we really are going around in circles, and the minds that need to be changed never will...

What Psychologists Say About Anti-Vaxxers: They’re Raging Narcissists

Study: You Can't Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind

Throwing Science At Anti-Vaxxers Just Makes Them More Hardline

Infections of the mind: why anti-vaxxers just ‘know’ they’re right

Satori Rae

mulbot wrote: »

I said i would consider it yes-i have considered other vaccines you mentioned. There was no more information in that link than what I've read before so obviously I think same. I think the recommended age for that vaccine is around 11-12. Also I'm not into religion at all,don't know why you would presume that,so no reasons or ingredients from that line of thinking-Now there is no point in us going around in circles again here,you know my position,i know your position,we disagree..

I was not presuming at all I was asking a question. Because I'm gobsmacked as to the thought of someone not vaccinating just cause.....so I am trying to understand o.O I asked about religious reasons due to fact you bought up aborted babies.

The science and trials clearly state
vaccinate and the most appropriate age you vaccinate. In fact you never said what you would do in an outbreak. ....ideally if one happens you're supposed to go into the doc if your child doesn't have what ever it is to be vaccinated straight away.

Sp hpv is a very very effective vaccine its given at the age of 12-13 after 14 your child would need 2 boosters and the cut of age for the vaccine is 18. Its very important girls get this it can save their lives but also save them from needing biopsies.

Herd immunity depends on at least 85% of the population being inoculated. I also hope you tell people such as there friends parents your kids are not vaccinated. ....sorry to say it me or mine would be nowhere near you if we knew that.

Lingua Franca

Jerrica wrote: »

Unfortunately at this point in the discussion we really are going around in circles, and the minds that need to be changed never will...

What Psychologists Say About Anti-Vaxxers: They’re Raging Narcissists

Study: You Can't Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind

Throwing Science At Anti-Vaxxers Just Makes Them More Hardline

Infections of the mind: why anti-vaxxers just ‘know’ they’re right

Heh, just the titles of those links are putting me in mind of a friend of mine - she's an anti vaxxer, and also a scientist. She's "done all the research" and can't find enough to put her mind at ease about vaxxing her kids, and she knows better than all of us because she's a SCIENTIST.

And last week on facebook she posted an article about Pepsi, Nestle and Kraft food companies all using aborted fetuses as an ingredient.

A scientist, ladies and gentlemen.

mulbot

tinkerbell wrote: »

So you're happy for your children to be exposed to potentially fatal diseases when they are at their most vulnerable (less than a year old) but quite happy to vaccinate them once they are teenagers? Ok :rolleyes:

I know you are not totally anti-vax but you may as well be when it comes to young babies so my question in my earlier post still stands - how could you live with yourself if something happened to your children due to not following the recommended vaccination schedule because you think you know better than the World Health Organisation? And if permanent damage was done as a result of contracting one of those deadly diseases? Your children would not be thanking you then. Sometimes parents need saving from themselves.

I was gonna also ask how you would feel if your children contracted measles and then passed it onto some innocent newborn baby but wait a minute, you said you only consider the "best interests of your children" (which is a ridiculous notion as it stands because you are putting them in danger of contracting a deadly disease) so you are giving the middle finger to everybody else. This type of selfish careless attitude just disgusts me. Fair enough if you don't want to vaccinate your kids, but until you do, then you should keep them away from general society until they are vaccinated. But that is not gonna work either because children need to be able to socialise. So we are back to square one again which means all children who can be vaccinated, should be.

And this argument of "it's the age the vaccine is given" is completely nonsense. You would vaccinate a teenager for disease X, at which point even if they caught the disease, they are far more likely to pull through it because a teenager / adult is much stronger than a newborn baby. So you indirectly think that a newborn baby would just be able to get on with it if they caught disease X? Babies are the most vulnerable in society because they are SO NEW to society. They are at huge risk of catching bugs and not being able to fight them off, unlike say a teenager who has got a developed immune system. So this whole "wait til they are older" argument is stupid - you should be happy for your children never to get any vaccine if that's the case (even when they are teenagers). Because sure if they can cope with measles exposure when they are a year old then they sure as hell can cope with with it when they are teenagers :rolleyes:

And if you have a daughter I'm sure she'd be pretty pissed off if she decides to have kids and then realises at her booking appointment that she has no rubella immunity and will spend the 9 months of her pregnancy worrying about possible exposure to it and the effects it would have on her unborn baby.

I have not said i would,i said i would consider it,it's not something i've looked into as much,and yes babies are very vulnerable,and as has been said countless times now,I have looked at the side effects too of giving them vaccines-This thread now is going in circles

mulbot

Satori Rae wrote: »

I was not presuming at all I was asking a question. Because I'm gobsmacked as to the thought of someone not vaccinating just cause.....so I am trying to understand o.O I asked about religious reasons due to fact you bought up aborted babies.

The science and trials clearly state
vaccinate and the most appropriate age you vaccinate. In fact you never said what you would do in an outbreak. ....ideally if one happens you're supposed to go into the doc if your child doesn't have what ever it is to be vaccinated straight away.

Sp hpv is a very very effective vaccine its given at the age of 12-13 after 14 your child would need 2 boosters and the cut of age for the vaccine is 18. Its very important girls get this it can save their lives but also save them from needing biopsies.

Herd immunity depends on at least 85% of the population being inoculated. I also hope you tell people such as there friends parents your kids are not vaccinated. ....sorry to say it me or mine would be nowhere near you if we knew that.

It is not a fact that i brought up aborted babies,that was another poster,two others i think.

tinkerbell

mulbot wrote: »

I have not said i would,i said i would consider it,it's not something i've looked into as much,and yes babies are very vulnerable,and as has been said countless times now,I have looked at the side effects too of giving them vaccines-This thread now is going in circles

And yet you still avoid the questions I asked. How could you live with yourself if one of your children contracted a potentially deadly disease which could've been avoided had you followed World Health Organisation advice and it left them with a permanent disability?

And why do you think you know better than the health officials at the World Health Organisation? Clearly you do as otherwise you would be following their advice regarding immunisation schedules. And this is a serious question, so please answer it.

You claim you have looked at the side effects of vaccines. Have you actually looked at the "side effects" of the horrific diseases that those vaccines PREVENT?

You also didn't answer a poster who asked what you would do if there was an outbreak of a disease - would you vaccinate then?

I find it so hugely irresponsible that a parent would willingly expose their precious children to these diseases which can kill children. Take Meningitis C for example - since the introduction of the vaccine in 1999 it has prevented over 13,000 cases and 1,300 deaths in the UK (taken from the Meningitis RF page). How is that a bad thing?

January

We gave it a good run folks, but unfortunately the thread is now just going around in circles and focusing on one poster being grilled by others. Thread closed.