Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fuddam

lol. Have you had measles? I have, so have all my siblings and my parents. In bed for a few days, a fever etc, then right as rain.

If the argument being used here is that despite some people having adverse reactions to (eg MMR) vaccinations, this must be weighed against the greater good of the general population, one could also argue that the chances of anyone going blind/dying from measles is also very rare and that must be weighed against the general population not having any real consequence from it.

:D

I'm not against vaccinations.
I'm against excessive vaccination.

---

No, I haven't because I have been vaccinated and I had boosters.

This is what the CDC has to say about measles http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

"Even in previously healthy children, measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization. As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about 1 child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis. (This is an inflammation of the brain that can lead to convulsions, and can leave the child deaf or mentally retarded.) For every 1,000 children who get measles, 1 or 2 will die from it. Measles also can make a pregnant woman have a miscarriage, give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby."

So no, measles doesn't kill a lot but causes a lot of suffering.

You realise that Rubella doesn't do much harm to us but has 85% chance of causing genetic abnormalities in foetuses? http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...s-parents.html

"Rubella is most dangerous for a pregnant woman’s babies. It can cause miscarriage or birth defects like deafness, intellectual disability, and heart defects. As many as 85 out of 100 babies born to mothers who had rubella in the first 3 months of her pregnancy will have a birth defect."

So yes, we fit, young and healthy may not be badly affected by some of these diseases but I think we have a duty to protect those who are vulnerable. If you don't agree with that then we have no more to discuss.

I don't agree with unnecessary medical treatments in general, which can include vaccinations. However, I take them on case by case basis. MMR is a proven and effective vaccine used worldwide, the only controversy here is science illiterates have been allowed to write articles in the media and scare the general population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

Anyone remember this http://scienceinsociety.northwestern...mide/title-tba My point is people dont just take the governments word anymore that it's safe and are wary about immunisation these days.

---

Yes, we got taught about Thalidomide at Uni and in industry when talking about the importance of GMP. It's the reason why the FDA and MHRA exists today. It's also the reason why taking a drug from conception to the market will cost around 500 to 1 billion USD and almost a decade.
However, using that as a scare tactic against vaccinations is just misguided and potentially dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

However, using that as a scare tactic against vaccinations is just misguided and potentially dangerous.

---

I wasnt using it as a scare tactic.....my point as i stated earlier is people dont believe everything the government tells them anymore and are wary of new drugs being administered to their children etc....Drugs is a multi million pound business Just like everything else ........did you really think there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? People dont believe everything they're told anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

I wasnt using it as a scare tactic.....my point as i stated earlier is people dont believe everything the government tells them anymore and are wary of new drugs being administered to their children etc....Drugs is a multi million pound business Just like everything else ........did you really think there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? People dont believe everything they're told anymore.

---

It's about assessing the evidence and the facts. I don't trust the government either given how they peddle lies and massage statistics. But vaccines aren't endorse just by governments, they are supported by various independent organisations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

It's about assessing the evidence and the facts. I don't trust the government either given how they peddle lies and massage statistics. But vaccines aren't endorse just by governments, they are supported by various independent organisations.

---

But the point Mother is trying to make has nothing to do with endorsement or lack thereof (please correct me if I'm wrong). It's the publication in the media of data causing the general public to become prejudiced about vaccinations in general. This is pretty standard social behaviour I believe.

Think of it this way. A couple of years, some Toyota car models had problems with the accelerator. This was quickly fixed but the damage had already been done. It took some time for the general public to trust Toyota's and for their sales to return to normal "because they must all be bad".

My wife still to this day rejects any idea of me buying a Toyota! She's not stupid, just prejudiced against them because of the information presented in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajones

But the point Mother is trying to make has nothing to do with endorsement or lack thereof (please correct me if I'm wrong). It's the publication in the media of data causing the general public to become prejudiced about vaccinations in general. This is pretty standard social behaviour I believe.

Think of it this way. A couple of years, some Toyota car models had problems with the accelerator. This was quickly fixed but the damage had already been done. It took some time for the general public to trust Toyota's and for their sales to return to normal "because they must all be bad".

My wife still to this day rejects any idea of me buying a Toyota! She's not stupid, just prejudiced against them because of the information presented in the media.

---

Which is why I actively encourage people to question more and find answers. It's the only way opinions can change.
I think the media have learnt their lessons after this debacle but there's still much to do to educate people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

It's about assessing the evidence and the facts. I don't trust the government either given how they peddle lies and massage statistics. But vaccines aren't endorse just by governments, they are supported by various independent organisations.

---

The problem is that most people dont understand, read or trust the evidence or facts because, even when from "independent sources", people just dont know if its all biased or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobF64

people just dont know if its all biased or not.

---

I think people know that it is biased. Let me pick just one (easy) example

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

Rubella ... has 85% chance of causing genetic abnormalities.

---

Quoted from the CDC website.

But a simple google reveals ...

Quote:

---

If the infection occurs 0–12 weeks after conception, there is a 51% chance the infant will be affected

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congeni...bella_syndrome

So why would the CDC cherry pick the most extreme example ever published (the "As many as" indicates this) ? Whatever their reasons it show to me that if they are willing to exaggerate the impact of a disease they will also be willing to exaggerate the safety of vaccines. I'm certainly not the only one who believes this.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/

Quote:

---

The International Medical Council on Vaccination is an association of medical doctors, (etc.) whose purpose is to counter the messages asserted by pharmaceutical companies, the government and medical agencies that vaccines are safe, effective and harmless

---

The problem is it's not possible to have a rational discussion about vaccines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

I think people know that it is biased. Let me pick just one (easy) example

Quoted from the CDC website.

But a simple google reveals ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congeni...bella_syndrome

So why would the CDC cherry pick the most extreme example ever published (the "As many as" indicates this) ? Whatever their reasons it show to me that if they are willing to exaggerate the impact of a disease they will also be willing to exaggerate the safety of vaccines. I'm certainly not the only one who believes this.

---

Yes, they most likely did choose the upper range of % but let me ask you this, isn't 51% a high enough percentage for you to be concerned if you had a newly pregnant wife who's not been vaccinated against Rubella?

Prevention is nearly always better than cure. If everyone took that viewpoint then our NHS wouldn't be struggling so much under the immense costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/

The problem is it's not possible to have a rational discussion about vaccines.

---

And why not? It's grounded on science and that's all about rationality. Just because you found a think tank with doctors who are in disagreement doesn't mean it overrides the majority of the medical profession and major organisations out there. I see them on the same level as creationist/intelligent design supporters.

Out of curiosity, who here has a degree (or higher) in Biomedical sciences or related subjects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

isn't 51% a high enough percentage for you to be concerned

---

Yes it is, what's your point ? The Rubella vaccine is almost universally considered to be safe and effective.

The same cannot be said for the mumps vaccine. In September 2012 there was a mumps outbreak at a public school in Cumbria. 66 cases of mumps, 35 had 2 doses of MMR, 11 had 1 dose, 9 had none, 11 had no records. http://www.lancet.com/journals/...
So it would seem that the mumps component of the MMR doesn't actually work very well. There is now court case in the USA where two whistle blowers are claiming exactly that. http://online.wsj.com/...

Quote:

---

the suit claims Merck manipulated the results of clinical trials beginning in the late 1990s so as to be able to report that the combined mumps vaccine, known as MMR-II

---

merck-whistleblower-suit-a-boon-to-anti-vaccination-advocates-though-it-stresses-importance-of-vaccines/
So in an article that discusses the possibility of "Merck’s fraud", the main concern, as seen in the title, is that it might be "a Boon to Vaccine Foes".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

Just because you found a think tank with doctors who are in disagreement doesn't mean it overrides the majority of the medical profession

---

That's true, it doesn't, but that link was mainly for TheAnimus et. al. who seem to think that Wakefield is the only doctor with concerns. Also, when it comes to science democracy has no place. Professor Marshall was ridiculed for suggesting that a bacteria could cause stomach ulsers. I guess "everyone" had to eat their words after he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Read the everyone was against me quote here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

I see them on the same level as creationist/intelligent design supporters.

---

Sorry, when you prefer Ad Hominem attacks over the science then I view you on the same level as creationists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcwt2010

Out of curiosity, who here has a degree (or higher) in Biomedical sciences or related subjects?

---

My first degree in in Physics, my masters is in Software Engineering. My wife's degree is in Biochemistry. I talked her out of doing a PhD, so rather than spending 3 years studying the bioavailability of minerals in formula baby milk, she started a 10 year career working for Merck, the main manufacturer of the MMR. She was heavily involved in the launch of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx. It was the most successful drug launch ever ! They lied about that one too...

Quote:

---

Merck has reserved $970 million to pay for its Vioxx-related legal expenses through 2007, and have set aside $4.85bn for legal claims from US citizens

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

Yes it is, what's your point ? The Rubella vaccine is almost universally considered to be safe and effective.

---

We seem to have lost the original point. I believe I was making the case for MMR vaccinations but I'm not sure how you were interpreting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

The same cannot be said for the mumps vaccine. In September 2012 there was a mumps outbreak at a public school in Cumbria. 66 cases of mumps, 35 had 2 doses of MMR, 11 had 1 dose, 9 had none, 11 had no records. http://www.lancet.com/journals/...
So it would seem that the mumps component of the MMR doesn't actually work very well. There is now court case in the USA where two whistle blowers are claiming exactly that. http://online.wsj.com/...

---

Do you even read what you post? From the Lancet article itself;

Quote:

---

We welcome the recent announcement4 that there will be a national MMR catch-up campaign in England over the summer, because it is clear that a vulnerability to outbreaks—and epidemics—needs to be tackled throughout the country. This campaign is to be largely based in primary care, but public health authorities with independent schools or universities in their areas, should work closely with these institutions to ensure that systems are in place to record students' immunisation status, and offer boosters in a timely manner where needed. Our experience has highlighted the need for the private school sector to develop coherent policies for child health and immunisation. We have referred this issue to Public Health England.
We hope that the recent large increases in measles and mumps notifications and hospital admissions will remind parents and young people how important it is to be protected against these diseases that caused substantial mortality and morbidity in the UK only a generation ago. It is also important that health and education professionals promote vaccine uptake. This is preferable to any move towards compulsory vaccination.

---

So their conclusion is that MMR should still be given, for now at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

That's true, it doesn't, but that link was mainly for TheAnimus et. al. who seem to think that Wakefield is the only doctor with concerns. Also, when it comes to science democracy has no place. Professor Marshall was ridiculed for suggesting that a bacteria could cause stomach ulsers. I guess "everyone" had to eat their words after he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Read the everyone was against me quote here.

---

I think the rest of your posts give strong arguments but mentioning Wakefield is a big mistake.
Wakefield-gate
This comic neatly summarises what happened; I had no idea that Mr Wakefield was paid so much to write his report and that he had patented his only vaccine which would've potentially made him a lot of money had MMR been withdrawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

My first degree in in Physics, my masters is in Software Engineering. My wife's degree is in Biochemistry. I talked her out of doing a PhD, so rather than spending 3 years studying the bioavailability of minerals in formula baby milk, she started a 10 year career working for Merck, the main manufacturer of the MMR. She was heavily involved in the launch of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx. It was the most successful drug launch ever ! They lied about that one too...

---

Hey, I am no big supporter of Biotech/Pharma companies. Personally I do hope any company which falsify data and make things up should get slapped with massive fines and penalties.

So basically you're saying we should be wary of vaccines because big corporations are involved and it's all about profits? That's probably true but we have to weigh that against what would happen if we stopped all vaccinations due to trust issues.

dcwt2010, you're obviously new to this thread. I suggest you click back a few pages and read some of the previous posts.

Your "Wakefield-gate" comic is just pathetic. The number of inaccuracies and untruths it contains are too numerous to list. It's just yet another Ad Hominem attack. Rather than focussing on the personalities, why not look at the science .... yourself ? I dare you !

The Lancet report that I linked was chosen because of a) The Lancet's link to Wakefield, b) the concise listing of statistics that show that the Mumps component of MMR doesn't work and c) because of it's extremely poor scientific quality. Comments like "it might have been" and "woefully short of" are like red top journalism.

I presume that you are aware that the General Medical Council and the Lancet have both been reprimanded for their investigation that led to Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith being struck off (both for professional misconduct, not fraud). Walker-Smith has since been exonerated. Wakefield is just a matter of time.

Quote:

---

Its verdict followed 217 days of deliberation, making it the longest disciplinary case in the GMC's 152-year history.

The judge criticised the disciplinary panel's "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion".

---

mmr-doctor-john-walkersmith-wins-high-court-appeal-7543114.html

So the longest in their 152 year history and they screwed it up !!

The "hero" of your comic, Brian Deer was employed by the Times, run by James Murdock who at the time was on the board of GSK, one of the makers of the MMR. so-who's-disgraced-now/
So no conflict of interest there (sarcasm).

The fact is that Big Pharma suppresses research (see previous posts) and only publishes what their marketing department approves. That they over state vaccine safety. That they over state vaccine efficacy. That they over state disease severity and they relentlessly pursue anyone with a dissenting word against their cash cows. All shows to me that their "science" must be very carefully scrutinised.

Every disease is different, every vaccine is different but in the current climate we (parents) are prevented from asking questions. That cannot be good.


Last week, my wife was contacted by a mother who was scared about giving her kids the MMR. Her husband has Crohn's disease. Her first kid had 1 year of slimey stools (a Crohn's symptom) after having single measles jab. The medical profession was dismissive ("Oh, well, that's probably because you had the single vaccine instead of the MMR"). My advice was that the reason we strive for heard immunity (if there is such a thing - the only science is from the 1920s) is to protect kids like her's who might suffer from the vaccine.

As I said before, it's not possible to have a rational discussion about vaccines. There are too many ad hominem justifications where there should be science.

I've done rational so now I will do emotional.

Nathan was sent to hospital on Wednesday night because he was very poorly - not eating, refusing liquids, a temperature and listless.

Then he got a rash.

The doctors in Paediatrics were constantly asking me if his vaccinations were up to date. And why? Because he was presenting with symptoms that meant he could have any of the following:

• Meningitis
• Measles
• Rubella
• Chicken Pox

Note that I have put those in order of severity. The rash was not all blanching so they had to treat him for Meningitis including IV antibiotics - I was terrified. He is not old enough for MMR and there was a chance he had caught one of the three. I barely slept that night, and not just because they don't have actual beds for parents in the Children's Ward.

Other people's decisions to not vaccinate effect herd immunity - and that did (and still does) put my child at risk. Fortunately it wasn't any of those things and is some 'unknown virus' and he's completely recovered now; but if he had been that ill and someone talked to me about how vaccinations are evil I would have happily punched them - and would have done so on Wednesday.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-2...n-laws/4769002

Boom!

A nice little incentive :)

Fabulous I wholeheartedly approve.

Nathan had his 12 & 13month jabs on Monday (he had them together due to being in a study) so he's up to date