Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[Blue_bumpkin]

I could say that vampires cause SIDS and until you prove to me otherwise, i'm going to hang garlic around all the windows in my nursery to keep them out. And you know? that would be my choice. Fearing something does not make it, in reality, a real concern.
I'm not trying to make light of vaccine fears, just that the logic applied is so faulty at times it drives me crazy.

Yes, if vampires were visiting our children at 2 months and 4 months of age and tens of thousands of children were dying immediately after their visit, I WOULD suspect the vampires had something to do with the deaths. Your analogy is extremely unfitting. I am not just suggesting some completely random cause.

Vaccines don't cause SIDS. If they do then why doesn't every child vaccinated fall victim to it? SIDS is so rare that when compared to the number of people vaccinating their children, I cant see how anyone could definitively deduce cause and effect.

Many studies conducted have concluded that some children who have died from SIDS actually had slight abnormalities in the regions of the brain that control breathing etc.. These abnormalities are something, these children are born with.

The anitbodies a child inherits from its mother start to dwindle from 8 weeks, which is why it is thought that the risk peaks between 2-4 months and also why breastfeeding and vaccination reduces the risk. Statistics also show that several victims had been ill, even if only slight, in the few weeks prior to death.

And thats not even taking into account prenatal factors that increase the risk.

Like I said, definitively proving a cause for SIDS will be near impossible. People can only do what they feel is right. For every positive there will be a negative. im sure almost every person does their own research and makes an informed decision for their child that is neither right nor wrong.

For people who have been directly affected by SIDS, its difficult to accept without being able to lay blame or find an actual cause or reason for the loss.

SIDS on the whole is random and unexplained.

This is taken from the bupa website:

Causes of cot death
Identified causes
A specific cause is identified in around one in 10 cot deaths. Possible causes include serious infection, accident, or a previously unknown problem that the baby was born with (a 'congenital' condition) such as a heart defect or lung problem.

SIDS
If no specific cause can be found to explain the death, it's defined as SIDS. Research has suggested that a number of different factors may be linked to SIDS. It's believed that these factors don't actually cause SIDS, but may make a baby more at risk. These factors include:

allergies
bacterial and viral infections
unknown genetic conditions
problems in the area of the brain that controls breathing
irregular heartbeat
accidental suffocation
overheating

Until 'Recent vaccination' is listed as a risk factor then, personally, I am not going to worry.

I respect everyone elses decision though and wish those who are still currently deciding the best of luck with it

So basically your arguement is that since not every child vaccinated dies from SIDs, that proves there is no link? That makes no sense at all. Why doesn't every child who is vaccinated fall victim to an adverse reaction?? Not every child vaccinated has a vaccine reaction but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause one in SOME children. Also SIDS is NOT uncommon. It is actually the leading cause of death in children under the age of one.

Also, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to find an exact cause for SIDS someday. We know the exact cause of many other diseases.

Why are you so completely rude? Did you even read my entire post? If so then that is not 'basically my argument', my point was your talking as if vaccines do definitely cause SIDS which there is no proof for. And when I said why dont all vaccinated children fall victim that was a genuine question posed to you? The majority of children are fine post vaccination . While I agree there are risks to vaccinating, you dont seem to be able to accept that there are risks with not vaccinating. its quite clear you arent open to ANY kind of criticism whatsoever so what is the point in still arguing?

and fyi i said 'definitively proving a cause for SIDS will be near impossible' i didn't say we will never find a cause and that we shouldnt. i am not wasting anymore of my time on your posts.

With your selective reading you also failed to comment on the other points i made. Why is that?

i was very polite in mine and said i respect other ppls decision, why dont you do the same.

I never said I dont respect your decision. I said your argument made no sense. Also I didn't comment on the SIDs risk factors because I have a 3 week old who started crying. Anyways someone else commented on that for me and I agree with her. Those are just risk factors, they aren't the cause, and they dont disprove a link with vaccinations.

did i say they were causes? no, now you're just twisting my words. the point is that there is no 'cause' (and i use that term loosely) for SIDS 90% of the time. there are risk factors however for which there is a lot more evidence for than vaccines.

show me a link that proves vaccines cause SIDS and i will rethink my decision. infact show me a link that even supports a valid correlation and i reconsider, until then i will be much more inclined to listen to professionals rather than mere speculation and scaremongering.

 

[KandyKinz]

did i say they were causes? no, now you're just twisting my words. the point is that there is no 'cause' (and i use that term loosely) for SIDS 90% of the time. there are risk factors however for which there is a lot more evidence for than vaccines.

show me a link that proves vaccines cause SIDS and i will rethink my decision. infact show me a link that even supports a valid correlation and i reconsider, until then i will be much more inclined to listen to professionals rather than mere speculation and scaremongering.

I don't think it's "scaremongering" to bring up potential concerns regarding vaccines and just because it hasn't been demonstrated scientifically I don't think we should completely disregard it as being a possibility... Our scientific knowledge would be extremely limited without individuals who hypothesized something that went against our current thought framework. We shouldn't ridicule them for this as we'd still be a very primitive society without speculation. But whether or not we act on these unfounded concerns is an entirely individual decision and we really shouldn't judge each other for whatever decision it is that we make.

But I do agree as I wrote before that it is not very logical to dismiss all scientifically founded risk factors for SIDS as being theoretical myths while fully supporting currently unfounded factors like vaccines... That I just don't understand......

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

did i say they were causes? no, now you're just twisting my words. the point is that there is no 'cause' (and i use that term loosely) for SIDS 90% of the time. there are risk factors however for which there is a lot more evidence for than vaccines.

show me a link that proves vaccines cause SIDS and i will rethink my decision. infact show me a link that even supports a valid correlation and i reconsider, until then i will be much more inclined to listen to professionals rather than mere speculation and scaremongering.

I don't think it's "scaremongering" to bring up potential concerns regarding vaccines and just because it hasn't been demonstrated scientifically I don't think we should completely disregard it as being a possibility... Our scientific knowledge would be extremely limited without individuals who hypothesized something that went against our current thought framework. We shouldn't ridicule them for this as we'd still be a very primitive society without speculation. But whether or not we act on these unfounded concerns is an entirely individual decision and we really shouldn't judge each other for whatever decision it is that we make.

But I do agree as I wrote before that it is not very logical to dismiss all scientifically founded risk factors for SIDS as being theoretical myths while fully supporting currently unfounded factors like vaccines... That I just don't understand......

im sorry but a lot of the anti vaccine, i dont like labelling but to distinguish for these purposes, is scaremongering.

i went onto another forum (specific to vaccine related concerns) to seek advice re:not vaccinating. i suffer from severe anxiety and the thought of potentially harming my child unnecessarily really got to me. i was sent emails saying please do not vaccinate if your child has x y and z reactions then its your fault etc... i was also sent 'factsheets' from extremists organisations which contained some complete nonsense, along the lines of the gov 'inventing' disease scares to make people get vaccines in an attempt to cull the human race

i will agree though that there is scaremongering on both sides and also agree fully with your last point. i didnt however ridicule anyone for not vaccinating, it just seems to me a little hypocritical to question the safety of vaccines when there is no definitive proof either way of them being 100% safe

its like i said b4 all we can do is make an informed decision. for every pro there wil be a con, its personal preference at the end of the day. and i also said in a previous post that i respect others ppls decisions, i do not judge them for it

 

[Justagirlxx]

did i say they were causes? no, now you're just twisting my words. the point is that there is no 'cause' (and i use that term loosely) for SIDS 90% of the time. there are risk factors however for which there is a lot more evidence for than vaccines.

show me a link that proves vaccines cause SIDS and i will rethink my decision. infact show me a link that even supports a valid correlation and i reconsider, until then i will be much more inclined to listen to professionals rather than mere speculation and scaremongering.

I don't think it's "scaremongering" to bring up potential concerns regarding vaccines and just because it hasn't been demonstrated scientifically I don't think we should completely disregard it as being a possibility... Our scientific knowledge would be extremely limited without individuals who hypothesized something that went against our current thought framework. We shouldn't ridicule them for this as we'd still be a very primitive society without speculation. But whether or not we act on these unfounded concerns is an entirely individual decision and we really shouldn't judge each other for whatever decision it is that we make.

But I do agree as I wrote before that it is not very logical to dismiss all scientifically founded risk factors for SIDS as being theoretical myths while fully supporting currently unfounded factors like vaccines... That I just don't understand......

im sorry but a lot of the anti vaccine, i dont like labelling but to distinguish for these purposes, is scaremongering.

i went onto another forum (specific to vaccine related concerns) to seek advice re:not vaccinating. i suffer from severe anxiety and the thought of potentially harming my child unnecessarily really got to me. i was sent emails saying please do not vaccinate if your child has x y and z reactions then its your fault etc... i was also sent 'factsheets' from extremists organisations which contained some complete nonsense, along the lines of the gov 'inventing' disease scares to make people get vaccines in an attempt to cull the human race

i will agree though that there is scaremongering on both sides and also agree fully with your last point. i didnt however ridicule anyone for not vaccinating, it just seems to me a little hypocritical to question the safety of vaccines when there is no definitive proof either way of them being 100% safe

its like i said b4 all we can do is make an informed decision. for every pro there wil be a con, its personal preference at the end of the day. and i also said in a previous post that i respect others ppls decisions, i do not judge them for it

The people you just described from the other forum and me speculating that there could be a link between SIDS and vaccines are completely different situations. I dont believe that anything that has been said on this thread can be considered scare-mongering, but I do believe what you experienced on that forum absolutely was scare mongering and I dont agree with what they are doing at all. But it does sound like you found an extremist website/forum and are basing all of your opinions and judgments of the non-vaxers on those people. We are not all like that! I would NEVER tell you that you are doing the wrong thing by vaccinating your child. I understand that there are risks to both decisions and I would never tell another mother what she should and shouldn't do with her child. Its a very hard decision that we all have to make. All of us just want to do whats best for our LOs.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

did i say they were causes? no, now you're just twisting my words. the point is that there is no 'cause' (and i use that term loosely) for SIDS 90% of the time. there are risk factors however for which there is a lot more evidence for than vaccines.

show me a link that proves vaccines cause SIDS and i will rethink my decision. infact show me a link that even supports a valid correlation and i reconsider, until then i will be much more inclined to listen to professionals rather than mere speculation and scaremongering.

I don't think it's "scaremongering" to bring up potential concerns regarding vaccines and just because it hasn't been demonstrated scientifically I don't think we should completely disregard it as being a possibility... Our scientific knowledge would be extremely limited without individuals who hypothesized something that went against our current thought framework. We shouldn't ridicule them for this as we'd still be a very primitive society without speculation. But whether or not we act on these unfounded concerns is an entirely individual decision and we really shouldn't judge each other for whatever decision it is that we make.

But I do agree as I wrote before that it is not very logical to dismiss all scientifically founded risk factors for SIDS as being theoretical myths while fully supporting currently unfounded factors like vaccines... That I just don't understand......

im sorry but a lot of the anti vaccine, i dont like labelling but to distinguish for these purposes, is scaremongering.

i went onto another forum (specific to vaccine related concerns) to seek advice re:not vaccinating. i suffer from severe anxiety and the thought of potentially harming my child unnecessarily really got to me. i was sent emails saying please do not vaccinate if your child has x y and z reactions then its your fault etc... i was also sent 'factsheets' from extremists organisations which contained some complete nonsense, along the lines of the gov 'inventing' disease scares to make people get vaccines in an attempt to cull the human race

i will agree though that there is scaremongering on both sides and also agree fully with your last point. i didnt however ridicule anyone for not vaccinating, it just seems to me a little hypocritical to question the safety of vaccines when there is no definitive proof either way of them being 100% safe

its like i said b4 all we can do is make an informed decision. for every pro there wil be a con, its personal preference at the end of the day. and i also said in a previous post that i respect others ppls decisions, i do not judge them for it

The people you just described from the other forum and me speculating that there could be a link between SIDS and vaccines are completely different situations. I dont believe that anything that has been said on this thread can be considered scare-mongering, but I do believe what you experienced on that forum absolutely was scare mongering and I dont agree with what they are doing at all. But it does sound like you found an extremist website/forum and are basing all of your opinions and judgments of the non-vaxers on those people. We are not all like that! I would NEVER tell you that you are doing the wrong thing by vaccinating your child. I understand that there are risks to both decisions and I would never tell another mother what she should and shouldn't do with her child. Its a very hard decision that we all have to make. All of us just want to do whats best for our LOs.

yeah i agree

 

[blutea]

I also have to argue that most vaccine safety (what you call anti vaccine) information is not scaremongering. You were just looking in the wrong place.

It is so very important to be informed of both the risks of disease and the risks of vaccines. I was injured by a Tetanus vaccine because I was not educated. Little did I know that my chance of contracting Tetanus due to my work accident was 1:100,000.000.000.000.000...and I was injured by the vaccine instead. I wish I had been informed but now I know better. It could happen to anyone...I'm just sayin'...

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I have to argue that most vaccine safety (what you call anti vaccine) information is not scaremongering. You were just looking in the wrong place.

Still, it is so very important to be informed of both the risks of disease and the risks of vaccines. I was injured by a Tetanus vaccine because I was not educated. Little did I know that my chance of contracting Tetanus due to my work accident was 1:100,000.000.000.000.000...and I was injured by the vaccine instead. I wish I had been informed but now I know better. It could happen to anyone...I'm just sayin'...

I made a very well informed decision to vaccinate. I would have done nothing less. A is the most important thing in the world to me. I decide nothing for him, well on this scale anyway, half heartedly. It is very hard to distinguish between what is and what isnt valid information and what is scaremongering, especially when the internet is involved (damn you google!). To some what I seen on that website is merely genuine concern. To others, myself included, it is scaremongering. I rely mostly on scientific research as the basis for my decision to vaccinate. Not saying that those who do not vaccinate dont but personally, I found more evidence for vaccine safety than i did for it being unsafe. It doesnt mean Im looking in the wrong place. I was not naive in my decision.

I used the term anti vaccine loosely to distinguish between those who vaccinate and those who dont. It was for quicker and easier explanation. I also stated that it was for that purpose alone. I do not like 'labelling' so to speak.

 

[blutea]

I have to argue that most vaccine safety (what you call anti vaccine) information is not scaremongering. You were just looking in the wrong place.

Still, it is so very important to be informed of both the risks of disease and the risks of vaccines. I was injured by a Tetanus vaccine because I was not educated. Little did I know that my chance of contracting Tetanus due to my work accident was 1:100,000.000.000.000.000...and I was injured by the vaccine instead. I wish I had been informed but now I know better. It could happen to anyone...I'm just sayin'...

I made a very well informed decision to vaccinate. I would have done nothing less. A is the most important thing in the world to me. I decide nothing for him, well on this scale anyway, half heartedly. It is very hard to distinguish between what is and what isnt valid information and what is scaremongering, especially when the internet is involved (damn you google!). To some what I seen on that website is merely genuine concern. To others, myself included, it is scaremongering. I rely mostly on scientific research as the basis for my decision to vaccinate. Not saying that those who do not vaccinate dont but personally, I found more evidence for vaccine safety than i did for it being unsafe. It doesnt mean Im looking in the wrong place. I was not naive in my decision.

I used the term anti vaccine loosely to distinguish between those who vaccinate and those who dont. It was for quicker and easier explanation. I also stated that it was for that purpose alone. I do not like 'labelling' so to speak.

No, you misunderstand, going to the forum you went to was the wrong place because you felt scared. I wasn't judging the other places you got your information. However, since you brought it up-most of what you view as reliable could be considered theory at best. If you read closely you will see a lot of words like "might" "could" "may" suggesting that the article is making it's best guess about the vaccine because it cannot be proven if, in fact, a vaccine could actually save a person's life. I consider this scaremongering and propaganda. If you feel that it is informed information that is fine. But based on my personal experience I am not willing to put my family at risk of vaccine injury or death due to someone's best guess. We are all only trying to do what is best for our families.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I have to argue that most vaccine safety (what you call anti vaccine) information is not scaremongering. You were just looking in the wrong place.

Still, it is so very important to be informed of both the risks of disease and the risks of vaccines. I was injured by a Tetanus vaccine because I was not educated. Little did I know that my chance of contracting Tetanus due to my work accident was 1:100,000.000.000.000.000...and I was injured by the vaccine instead. I wish I had been informed but now I know better. It could happen to anyone...I'm just sayin'...

I made a very well informed decision to vaccinate. I would have done nothing less. A is the most important thing in the world to me. I decide nothing for him, well on this scale anyway, half heartedly. It is very hard to distinguish between what is and what isnt valid information and what is scaremongering, especially when the internet is involved (damn you google!). To some what I seen on that website is merely genuine concern. To others, myself included, it is scaremongering. I rely mostly on scientific research as the basis for my decision to vaccinate. Not saying that those who do not vaccinate dont but personally, I found more evidence for vaccine safety than i did for it being unsafe. It doesnt mean Im looking in the wrong place. I was not naive in my decision.

I used the term anti vaccine loosely to distinguish between those who vaccinate and those who dont. It was for quicker and easier explanation. I also stated that it was for that purpose alone. I do not like 'labelling' so to speak.

No, you misunderstand, going to the forum you went to was the wrong place because you felt scared. I wasn't judging the other places you got your information. However, since you brought it up-most of what you view as reliable could be considered theory at best. If you read closely you will see a lot of words like "might" "could" "may" suggesting that the article is making it's best guess about the vaccine because it cannot be proven if, in fact, a vaccine could actually save a person's life. I consider this scaremongering and propaganda. If you feel that it is informed information that is fine. But based on my personal experience I am not willing to put my family at risk of vaccine injury or death due to someone's best guess. We are all only trying to do what is best for our families.

Thats because, as I said, it is extremely difficult to prove anything for definite in science. Something can happen in 99 times out of 100 cases, even 999 times in 1000 cases and it still wouldn't be proven as fact because there is always that margin of doubt, however small it is iykwim. Just because something is theory does not mean it is not credible nor reliable.

I am currently studying immunology. I have access to a wide variety of publications that have allowed me to make the informed decision I have.

Perhaps if i wasnt suffering from anxiety i'd feel differently. I worry so much about 'the worst happening' that living in fear of these diseases is something I know I could not contend with. much more reassuring, for me, to take positive action to begin with to help prevent A getting ill rather than worrying about him getting ill. But thats just me and my current state of mind. If I felt A wasnt at risk remaining unvaccinated then I would not have vaccinated. Thats why the decision was so hard from me.

 

[lisaf]

I think the risks from these diseases vary depending on where you are, and that can change in an instant.
I just saw on the news last night that there are over 300 verified cases of whooping cough in the county next to mine. So my concern over my child getting it may be a LOT higher than someone whose lives in an area where there are almost no cases at all.

Especially after what that girls said several pages back about the scar tissue around her heart that doctors have told her was from the whooping cough she had as a kid... stuff like that scares me way more than the vaccine risks.
Just the way I reason and think these things through.

blutea- I remember the vaccine liberation site you linked to states things very definitively... which might be why you feel more confidence in it. I prefer the 'might' and the 'may' of scientific journals because I KNOW that its more honest because nothing is ever certain.

 

[PeanutBean]

Here we go again with yet more misunderstanding of science. By reading published scientific papers blue_bumpkin has gone to the ONLY reputable source of information about vaccinations. Anything unpublished in speculation and theory. As she had quite rightly said it us actually impossible to prove anything at all. Even that the sun wl ruse tomorrow. We can only say with certainty things that have happened where we know all the variables. ALL science is published using words like may and suggests. ALL science begins as a theory study after study, repeat and expansion, looks in more detail at the theory and gives evidence for or against it. This IS science. As can expect no more. When a scientist proposes a new theory based on their own evidence it is considered by others. It might go against the grain and be controversial but that neither makes it right nor wrong. That's for future evidence to do. When a random lay person states something that contravenes all scientific evidence it doesn't mean they are a genius and a champion challenging dogma. It may occasionally be the case that the theory is considered in future scientific research and even that there may he some basis for it but where there have been many studies providing evidence in one direction it is certainly rate for something to turn out to be entirely the opposite.

My job is in science communication. One of the fundamental flaws in media reporting is that supportive studies are publicised as groundbreaking new certain cause or whatever, often extrapolated to infer far greater relevance and far reaching consequences that are entirely fictional. DESPITE the words may or suggests. But the opposite is also true. There is a language to science that is different to general language. There is an accepted format. Good results are caveated by good scientists to ensure they are not taken out of context or given more meaning. This in no way detracts from the quality if the research and the conclusions drawn from the data. It is a BAD scientist who will make far reaching claims based on limited data (or in the case of Wakefield fabricated data). The value of scientific research is in the repetition of studies by independent groups reaching the same conclusions. Please stop abusing the scientific process, all it does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of how it works.

 

[PeanutBean]

Lisaf we've got measles in Greater Manchester at the moment. Scary stuff.

 

[PeanutBean]

Sorry about the typos by the way, on my phone.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Here we go again with yet more misunderstanding of science. By reading published scientific papers blue_bumpkin has gone to the ONLY reputable source of information about vaccinations. Anything unpublished in speculation and theory. As she had quite rightly said it us actually impossible to prove anything at all. Even that the sun wl ruse tomorrow. We can only say with certainty things that have happened where we know all the variables. ALL science is published using words like may and suggests. ALL science begins as a theory study after study, repeat and expansion, looks in more detail at the theory and gives evidence for or against it. This IS science. As can expect no more. When a scientist proposes a new theory based on their own evidence it is considered by others. It might go against the grain and be controversial but that neither makes it right nor wrong. That's for future evidence to do. When a random lay person states something that contravenes all scientific evidence it doesn't mean they are a genius and a champion challenging dogma. It may occasionally be the case that the theory is considered in future scientific research and even that there may he some basis for it but where there have been many studies providing evidence in one direction it is certainly rate for something to turn out to be entirely the opposite.

My job is in science communication. One of the fundamental flaws in media reporting is that supportive studies are publicised as groundbreaking new certain cause or whatever, often extrapolated to infer far greater relevance and far reaching consequences that are entirely fictional. DESPITE the words may or suggests. But the opposite is also true. There is a language to science that is different to general language. There is an accepted format. Good results are caveated by good scientists to ensure they are not taken out of context or given more meaning. This in no way detracts from the quality if the research and the conclusions drawn from the data. It is a BAD scientist who will make far reaching claims based on limited data (or in the case of Wakefield fabricated data). The value of scientific research is in the repetition of studies by independent groups reaching the same conclusions. Please stop abusing the scientific process, all it does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of how it works.

Thank you. Thats what i've been trying to say. You put it far better than me though

 

[Justagirlxx]

Here we go again with yet more misunderstanding of science. By reading published scientific papers blue_bumpkin has gone to the ONLY reputable source of information about vaccinations. Anything unpublished in speculation and theory. As she had quite rightly said it us actually impossible to prove anything at all. Even that the sun wl ruse tomorrow. We can only say with certainty things that have happened where we know all the variables. ALL science is published using words like may and suggests. ALL science begins as a theory study after study, repeat and expansion, looks in more detail at the theory and gives evidence for or against it. This IS science. As can expect no more. When a scientist proposes a new theory based on their own evidence it is considered by others. It might go against the grain and be controversial but that neither makes it right nor wrong. That's for future evidence to do. When a random lay person states something that contravenes all scientific evidence it doesn't mean they are a genius and a champion challenging dogma. It may occasionally be the case that the theory is considered in future scientific research and even that there may he some basis for it but where there have been many studies providing evidence in one direction it is certainly rate for something to turn out to be entirely the opposite.

My job is in science communication. One of the fundamental flaws in media reporting is that supportive studies are publicised as groundbreaking new certain cause or whatever, often extrapolated to infer far greater relevance and far reaching consequences that are entirely fictional. DESPITE the words may or suggests. But the opposite is also true. There is a language to science that is different to general language. There is an accepted format. Good results are caveated by good scientists to ensure they are not taken out of context or given more meaning. This in no way detracts from the quality if the research and the conclusions drawn from the data. It is a BAD scientist who will make far reaching claims based on limited data (or in the case of Wakefield fabricated data). The value of scientific research is in the repetition of studies by independent groups reaching the same conclusions. Please stop abusing the scientific process, all it does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of how it works.

All you have to do is read the adverse reactions listed on the vaccine insert itself (including seizures, paralysis, and death to name a few) to know that vaccines can be very dangerous and come with risks. This is mainly what I base my decision to not vaccinate on. Is that source reputable enough for you?

 

[lisaf]

The diseases have much greater risks and those risks are much more likely to happen than the serious vaccine injuries. If your child never gets the disease, then of course the vaccine is an unneccessary risk. But my fear of the disease is still greater, and with more people opting out of vaccines, the risk seems higher to me for the disease to occur.

Its still your child and if your child is one of the few who has that reaction, then it doesn't matter what the statistics say. I'm not trying to criticize your choice... just sharing how I look at that risk sheet and come to a totally different conclusion.

I've read the package inserts on all the medications I've ever taken... they list all the POSSIBLE reactions, but by no means do most people have those reactions. I've never had any serious reactions to my medications or to any vaccine for that matter, so I trust them a lot and feel that reactions are rare... I have no reason to think me or my child will be one of the few who have a bad reaction.

 

[lisaf]

In fact, lol... I think the risk sheets for the vaccines should also list the risks of getting the disease and give the statistics for both. I think that would be very useful information.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

have you seen the leaflet detailling side effects of paracetamol? tht'd shock you too but ppl take them everyday. fact is these reactions no matter how unlikely have to be listed as a possibility, for legal reasons if anything else.

 

[blutea]

Here we go again with yet more misunderstanding of science. By reading published scientific papers blue_bumpkin has gone to the ONLY reputable source of information about vaccinations. Anything unpublished in speculation and theory. As she had quite rightly said it us actually impossible to prove anything at all. Even that the sun wl ruse tomorrow. We can only say with certainty things that have happened where we know all the variables. ALL science is published using words like may and suggests. ALL science begins as a theory study after study, repeat and expansion, looks in more detail at the theory and gives evidence for or against it. This IS science. As can expect no more. When a scientist proposes a new theory based on their own evidence it is considered by others. It might go against the grain and be controversial but that neither makes it right nor wrong. That's for future evidence to do. When a random lay person states something that contravenes all scientific evidence it doesn't mean they are a genius and a champion challenging dogma. It may occasionally be the case that the theory is considered in future scientific research and even that there may he some basis for it but where there have been many studies providing evidence in one direction it is certainly rate for something to turn out to be entirely the opposite.

My job is in science communication. One of the fundamental flaws in media reporting is that supportive studies are publicised as groundbreaking new certain cause or whatever, often extrapolated to infer far greater relevance and far reaching consequences that are entirely fictional. DESPITE the words may or suggests. But the opposite is also true. There is a language to science that is different to general language. There is an accepted format. Good results are caveated by good scientists to ensure they are not taken out of context or given more meaning. This in no way detracts from the quality if the research and the conclusions drawn from the data. It is a BAD scientist who will make far reaching claims based on limited data (or in the case of Wakefield fabricated data). The value of scientific research is in the repetition of studies by independent groups reaching the same conclusions. Please stop abusing the scientific process, all it does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of how it works.

Unbelievable!!! I was actually really, really enjoying your explanation except for you first opinion where you said, "Here we go again with yet more misunderstanding of science." and until your last opinion where you said, "Please stop abusing the scientific process, all it does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of how it works." I was not abusing science. I was explaining it as I understood it. If that makes me uninformed about the inner workings of science then so be it. Obviously, it has flaws because every human being, even those who work in science are imperfect. My views are unpopular but that doesn't make them wrong. Not all of us are scientists and I don't appreciate you judging me for not understanding every aspect of it. You have no right to tell me to stop expressing my views because this is a public forum. It is obvious that you are trying to provoke me. Goodness, you can be so condescending...I wish you would get off of your high horse, Ms Know it all.

However, I do agree with your comments on the media. The media is very biased. I'm sure you know that most people only take that as fact and they don't have the time to research the medical journals.

 

[blutea]

In fact, lol... I think the risk sheets for the vaccines should also list the risks of getting the disease and give the statistics for both. I think that would be very useful information.

It would be fantastic if they listed the risks of disease because then people could make an informed decision. In my humble opinion, more people would probably choose not to vaccinate if they knew the true disease statics against the true adverse reactions rates of vaccines.