Whooping cough making a come back becoz people don't vaccinate

[feeble]

But your *feelings* doesn't make it fact. I *feel* that the majority of people who don't vaccinate, do not because they think it's 'cool', but that doesn't make it a 'fact'.

Urm... i am on an internet forum, sharing my opinion... just like everybody else...

Whats with the circular argument? Is it because you have very little to say in opposition so you are continuing to belittle my point of view rather than having one of your own? because its a bit lame tbh.

 

[JASMAK]

this is how i see it (for arguments sake)

90% of parents (or thereabouts) vaccinate at 2/4/6 months because they are told to

10% of parents (or thereabouts) research vaccination;

5% decide to vax or selectively vax

5% decide NOT to vax at all.

that still means the MAJORITY of people who do not vaccinate do not do so because of research, whereas the majority of people vaccinating, do so because they are told/assume it is the 'done thing' or that they dont have a choice in the matter.

I just wish that 10% was bigger, not necessarily that more people chose not to vax, as i have said a few times, i have vaccinated my child and will continue to (selectively) vaccinate my children. So this 'us and them' nonsense, is just that, Nonsense.

I would be surprised with those statistics, actually. Here in Canada, we are given information for and against vaccines and then we have to sign (informed decision). We are told of all risks and even what is in the vaccine. If you had a link for these statistics, I actually would be pretty interested in reading it. But, for now, I don't buy it.

 

[feeble]

They call it 'herd immunity' it's irrelevant to them, if 5% of children are damaged from vaccines, because 95% aren't, so it's for the 'good of the herd'

Much of what I have read leads me to believe its an awful lot to do with being bloody minding and refusing to admit they are wrong about anything also.

But it's not just NHS? Are you saying the entire vaccinating world is wrong? All medical bodies are wrong and are corrupt and tricking parents into getting vaccinated, and countries, like Ughanda (I use that one because I have family there) children are dying daily of diseases that shouldn't be vaccinated.

I am not in a 3rd world country where children every day die of diptheria, i am in England, Diptheria (for an example) is a disease caused by poo in water, not a massive problem here in the UK

Human being are not a 'herd' every life is sacred and the ONLY person 100% looking out for your child, is you. If you have reason to believe (as a poster above has mentioned) that your child is going to have adverse reactions to an injection, they you are going to base a decision on that, not think 'oh well its for the good of the herd, bring em on!'

I do not like the perception that we are a herd, i think thats the wrong way to view humans in society.

 

[feeble]

this is how i see it (for arguments sake)

90% of parents (or thereabouts) vaccinate at 2/4/6 months because they are told to

10% of parents (or thereabouts) research vaccination;

5% decide to vax or selectively vax

5% decide NOT to vax at all.

that still means the MAJORITY of people who do not vaccinate do not do so because of research, whereas the majority of people vaccinating, do so because they are told/assume it is the 'done thing' or that they dont have a choice in the matter.

I just wish that 10% was bigger, not necessarily that more people chose not to vax, as i have said a few times, i have vaccinated my child and will continue to (selectively) vaccinate my children. So this 'us and them' nonsense, is just that, Nonsense.

I would be surprised with those statistics, actually. Here in Canada, we are given information for and against vaccines and then we have to sign (informed decision). We are told of all risks and even what is in the vaccine. If you had a link for these statistics, I actually would be pretty interested in reading it. But, for now, I don't buy it.

Read the bit in bold, now read it again... I am not stating FACTS i am offering my OPINION

Its great that in Canada you are given the risks and benefits associated with vaccination, here in the UK if you do not get your child vaccinated on sceduel you are sent letters, you have appointments made for you and every time you visit the doctors you are told again and again that you MUST vaccinate your 2/3 month old child IMMEDIATELY 'or else'

there is very little information given about vaccinations by the NHS and that information is sought out by people not given freely.

I understand and am HAPPY that things are done differently in Canada, but i am not speaking as someone who lives in Canada, as i have specified again and again, i am speaking about the NHS protocol as far as vaccines and what i have witnessed from being around mothers/children/family/friends and seeing the way the NHS pushes vaccination uptake.

its a different kettle of fish.

 

[feeble]

I am not trying to be rude...I just found some of your comments rude, actually...and this is the debate section, so if you are going to post your comment, then you have to assume someone is going to not only disagree, but want to debtate it.

I would LOVE to just debate it, there is a big difference between discussing someone opinion and rubbishing their right to HAVE an opinion, which is actually all you have managed to do, you have systematically ignored any explaination i have given as to WHY i feel the way i do and instead focusing on WHY i cannot have that opinion rather than offering your own

Needless to say, i DO have this opinion, it is not based in 'nothing' or viewing the world as 'dim wits' as you so, delicately pointed out. I have attempted to respond to all your points (even the ridiculously personal ones based on nothing but your assumption about what i am saying) but really, discussing the information is far more interesting with having circular arguments with people.

 

[JASMAK]

I am sorry you are getting so upset. That wasn't my intention. I am not belittling you, and I am sorry you feel that way. I am simply debating with the other person who i don't agree with, and your 'opinions' striek me as funny because you are saying how people should research, yet you have opinions unsupported by facts..opinions which are a bit offensive, tbh (people just do it as a 'herd mentality'). If you really can't take the heat of a debate without taking it as a personal attack, perhaps this just isn't the place for you? Because nothing I have said was attacking, honestly. I am not angry. I was disagreeing, and pointing out my facts and opinions, and stating why I disagreed. Simple as that.

 

[feeble]

i have to say i have NEVER EVER thought 'i know, i will not vaccinate my child because it looks 'cool''

now i am going to bed, with a smirk on my face at that comment i must say!!!!

 

[feeble]

ummmm... herd immunity isnt something i 'made up'

https://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/sciencevaccinations.aspx

but i can see your understanding of vaccination is flawless

 

[JASMAK]

ummmm... herd immunity isnt something i 'made up'

https://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/sciencevaccinations.aspx

but i can see your understanding of vaccination is flawless

I am assuming that was made in sarcasm...you can dish it out, I see. Not sure why you are on my case for 'attacking' with my opinion, when you have no problem actually trying to be rude, even after I apologized. Not sure what's up with that. .

 

[feeble]

ummmm... herd immunity isnt something i 'made up'

https://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/sciencevaccinations.aspx

but i can see your understanding of vaccination is flawless

I am assuming that was made in sarcasm...you can dish it out, I see. Not sure why you are on my case for 'attacking' with my opinion, when you have no problem actually trying to be rude, even after I apologized. Not sure what's up with that. .

Again... Ignoring the information...

Yes it was sarcastic, I had to go to bed and had just had a ridiculously pointless circular argument for aggges without ever actually discussing the thing we are debating!!

I think I will just ignore your posts from now, all the best an all but my pregnant hormones cannot handle it x

 

[Natasha2605]

If anything i just wish people would research themselves and make an informed decision, but its quite obvious that 90% of young mothers dont do that, they just do what the doc says.

Are you for real?! That has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on this site.

So tell me, why is it quite obvious? I'm sure if you go over to Teen Parenting and ask who has and hasn't vaccinated and why they have made their decision everyone will be able to give you their reasons. I'm sure that 99.9% of girls (myself included) will tell you that we did do research before deciding on vaccinations (or not). Young mothers are just that : young. Not stupid. Not naive. And perfectly capable of reading statistics and research.

 

[feeble]

I meant young as in new rather than as in age, sorry I didnt mean to segregate mothers who are young... Sorry it came across that way!

 

[smelly07]

urmmmmm okay................. well i reserched the vaccinations thoroughly especially the MMR.... before i decided my girls will have protection from all these illnesess.... A close friend of mines child caught whooping cough and shock horror was BF and she nearly died and it took months and months and months for her to recover..........it can happen and there is immuisations out there for certain ages and for certain reasons breast fed or not...... it does annoy me that people dont vaccinate but at the end of the day thats there choice and i know i have done what i thought was best for my children.............vaccinations do work and if you look at figures of deaths from all the illnesses our children can be vaccinated against now compared to before the time of vaccinations it says it all x

 

[feeble]

For the record, I consider myself a young mother, and I am 28!

 

[Natasha2605]

I meant young as in new rather than as in age, sorry I didnt mean to segregate mothers who are young... Sorry it came across that way!

Okay Thanks for clarifying. I don't agree with you but each to their own. I would have thought that any mother would research any decision regarding their child, whether than concern weaning, sleep training, vaccinations etc. I guess there will be some that don't though !

 

[feeble]

I meant young as in new rather than as in age, sorry I didnt mean to segregate mothers who are young... Sorry it came across that way!

Okay Thanks for clarifying. I don't agree with you but each to their own. I would have thought that any mother would research any decision regarding their child, whether than concern weaning, sleep training, vaccinations etc. I guess there will be some that don't though !

I really wish that was the case x unfortunately the country/world is full of people who just do what their parents did, what their health visitor tells them to do and what they are told to do by their doctors...

It's evident across the board, young babies no more than a month old being left to CIO, weaning from 4mths because 'it says that on the packet' I could go on.

Unfortunately I don't think vaccination is any different, and even if it were, it's a nightmare trying to find up to date, unbiased research either way... I spent literally months checking it out and came to the conclusion that I would vax but delay the first ones and only offer the mmr as separate injections...

I am not anti vaccination at all, I am pro choice and pro research though and I just wish people would think about it more x

 

[summer rain]

this is how i see it (for arguments sake)

90% of parents (or thereabouts) vaccinate at 2/4/6 months because they are told to

10% of parents (or thereabouts) research vaccination;

5% decide to vax or selectively vax

5% decide NOT to vax at all.

that still means the MAJORITY of people who do not vaccinate do not do so because of research, whereas the majority of people vaccinating, do so because they are told/assume it is the 'done thing' or that they dont have a choice in the matter.

I just wish that 10% was bigger, not necessarily that more people chose not to vax, as i have said a few times, i have vaccinated my child and will continue to (selectively) vaccinate my children. So this 'us and them' nonsense, is just that, Nonsense.

I would be surprised with those statistics, actually. Here in Canada, we are given information for and against vaccines and then we have to sign (informed decision). We are told of all risks and even what is in the vaccine. If you had a link for these statistics, I actually would be pretty interested in reading it. But, for now, I don't buy it.

In the UK you're not given this information, most vaccination nurses don't even give you the insert inside the vaccine packaging and the government says there is pretty much no vaccine reaction which legitimises not having further doses of the vaccine. Its great its like that in Canada but here it really isn't. Also I can't speak for the entire UK but in London if you even choose to delay the MMR you will have your GP surgery phoning and harassing you and really putting on the pressure to have it done immediately, the nurse at my local surgery kept doing this (we hadn't even deliberately delayed my son's MMR, just never got a letter to do with it) and she then let slip that the surgery risked being fined/having some of their funding withdrawn by the NHS because of a poor uptake of MMR in this area and they kept sending 'welfare officers' to the surgery to give them the hard sell on vaccines, while I felt sorry for the lady and got my son's MMR done I think that is totally wrong for the NHS to do this xx

 

[summer rain]

what would the NHS benefit from vaccinated our children with unsafe vaccines Surely it would cost them more money in the longrun?

They get a lot of money from vaccine manufacturers to use their particular version of any one vaccine; this is why the government chose one brand of cervical cancer vaccine over the other which is used far more widely in other countries and is believed to be more effective/less side effects; this is far more than they have to pay out in compensation to children who have been damaged by vaccines. I am not staunchly anti-vaccine but I do believe it is very naive to think that all vaccines are completely safe and well-tested and that those involved in making/marketing them don't sometimes have ulterior motives other than the health of the nation's children xx

 

[TattiesMum]

I am not in a 3rd world country where children every day die of diptheria, i am in England, Diptheria (for an example) is a disease caused by poo in water, not a massive problem here in the UK

Diptheria used to be a massive problem in the UK before the vaccine was introduced in the 1940's ... and it is in fact caused by close contact with cattle and possibly household pets like cats and dogs (because they carry the bacteria naturally in their mouths and noses) ... once a human has become infected from the source it is then possible for him/her to spread the infection by droplet transfer (ie coughs/sneezes etc) - nothing whatsoever to do with poo in water

Typhoid however is caused by sewage in water and it is rapidly on the increase in the UK ... and not because our water is becoming infected - although that is always a danger when areas flood and raw sewage is washed from the sewers into reservoirs etc (and when sewage is discharged into the sea, which is common on UK beaches). The reason the rates of Typhoid are going up so fast is because fewer people are taking up boosters before travelling abroad ... contracting the disease and then travelling home with it, where they can easily pass it on to others by simple physical contact because it is so highly contageous (and young children are particularly at risk)

It's all very well researching vaccines, but without a full knowledge of the diseases they prevent, their causes, transmission mediums and outcomes that information is pretty worthless - and to be honest it cheapens your argument because it is immediately obvious that there are large holes in your knowledge.

 

[feeble]

do many newborns come into contact with cattle?

I am not disputing that these diseases are fatal, only that they do not need to be vaccinated in such young children. I repeat, i agree with vaccination, i just do not understand why they are given so young or so frequently,

I do not know any newborns in close proximity to cattle, and if they were farm babies etc surely special allowance should be made for that, rather than every child being vaccinated at 2 months old for a disease that they will (probably) never come into contact with and certainly not at 2 months old...