Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jigger
By the same logic we should allow people in the UK to carry rocket propelled grenades because the stats for deaths by that are low too?
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
badass
Not one person in this thread so far has suggested anything outside the extreme end of the scale. The middle ground would be that all child related allowances claimable from the government are withdrawn if you don't get your child vaccinated.
That leaves the mentally subnormal the choice. Be mentally stupid and don't go for the vaccine and lose money or be smart and get the vaccine, make the world a safer place and maintain your entitlement to child related allowances.
I saw a few mid-ground suggestions, and I suggested education?
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jigger
Now apply that same logic to the smallpox vaccination programme. Not only would we have not eradicated smallpox, but it would have resurged, and possibly evolved immunity to the vaccine by now. Stupid arguments are stupid.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Now apply that same logic to the smallpox vaccination programme. Not only would we have not eradicated smallpox, but it would have resurged, and possibly evolved immunity to the vaccine by now. Stupid arguments are stupid.
Smallpox is a completely different scenario though isn't it. Pointless comparison is pointless.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jigger
Smallpox is a completely different scenario though isn't it. Pointless comparison is pointless.
Not really, because the stats your showing are the result of a vaccination program which most people are recieving, its only a minor percentage of the population (apparently calling those below the IQ levels of acceptability retarded is offensive, so I'll think of another term) who refuse the vaccination for their children.
The stats that are relevant are in areas where lots people have refused them, the 'localised herd' is suffering. In fact we are seeing over double the notifications that we were at the turn of the decade. It shows that whilst at present its effecting only a small population, it has grown somewhat (or notifications of it have).
The problem with analysing viral data is you need to have a model for the growth. There is a new disease out there, called rage, it started because someone spent 2 days doing nothing but reading the daily mail website. It takes 2 days for someone to do this. The rage is so prolific that on Day0 2 person has it, but come Day3 it is up to 3. Less than doubled, because the DM reader has no friends, because everyone around him is foreign. However one of those infected travelled a lot and met a lot of people so by Day 8 it is up to 10,000. By Day 16 in my fictional virus its up to 350,000. This is the tipping point, by day 18 it's 68,000,000!
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Interested timing given that I recently needed to submit a document declaring what I have been vaccinated against. In my case, I was vaccinated separately against measles, mumps, and rubella. However, I was also asked if I was immunised against Varicella as it is commonly done in Japan but it's my understanding that it is only encouraged for people "at risk" in the UK. So how do we decide what should be compulsory,and if the risk of complication is so low on most vaccines, probably inexpensive, why don't we get a whole bunch of other one done too (if any thing, it'll save time if people travel to more "exotic" places later in life)?
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Not really, because the stats your showing are the result of a vaccination program which most people are recieving, its only a minor percentage of the population (apparently calling those below the IQ levels of acceptability retarded is offensive, so I'll think of another term) who refuse the vaccination for their children.
The stats that are relevant are in areas where lots people have refused them, the 'localised herd' is suffering. In fact we are seeing over double the notifications that we were at the turn of the decade. It shows that whilst at present its effecting only a small population, it has grown somewhat (or notifications of it have).
The problem with analysing viral data is you need to have a model for the growth. There is a new disease out there, called rage, it started because someone spent 2 days doing nothing but reading the daily mail website. It takes 2 days for someone to do this. The rage is so prolific that on Day0 2 person has it, but come Day3 it is up to 3. Less than doubled, because the DM reader has no friends, because everyone around him is foreign. However one of those infected travelled a lot and met a lot of people so by Day 8 it is up to 10,000. By Day 16 in my fictional virus its up to 350,000. This is the tipping point, by day 18 it's 68,000,000!
Well the stats are from when the data first started to be collected in 1940 and I think it is the closest to information that we can get. People make choices on the information available no information is fool proof.
I'm sure if you(and even the herd as you call people) looked at the government data for smallpox and compared it with the data for measles (pre or post vaccine) you would be able to very clearly see a different picture.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
I'm not questioning the stats, I am merely drawing attention to the worrying rise in them of late. Those stats enough should be worth persuading governments to push down hard on those who are too mentally deficient to vaccinate their children.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jigger
Well the stats are from when the data first started to be collected in 1940 and I think it is the closest to information that we can get. People make choices on the information available no information is fool proof.
I'm sure if you(and even the herd as you call people) looked at the government data for smallpox and compared it with the data for measles (pre or post vaccine) you would be able to see very clearly see a different picture.
Herd is actually a term used in this field, not meant as some derogatory comment. :)
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
watercooled
I saw a few mid-ground suggestions, and I suggested education?
Fair point, however the more middle ground reasonable suggestions seem to be getting drowned out by the people at the extreme end of the scale.
Much like any argument - it'd dominated by those with the extreme views, drowning out the more reasonable.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Smudger
I don't think you can blame the parents in S Wales for this one. There was a sustained campaign against MMR by the local and national press, they possibly wouldn't have access to medical papers, and then when it was discredited, there wasn't the same campaign to get people immunised.
I think the defficient press also has to blame for this issue with their selfish headliners that their main aim is to sell papers. How convieniant that when the paper is discredited it doesn't get much news firstly it makes them sound like muppets in the first place, and secondly it doesn't sell much papers.
I think those papers/press that campaigned against the MMR vaccine should have a full page apology and article to encourge responsible parents to vaccinate. Excluding those who are not responsible and mentally defficient of course,.
I think that when people make choices like eating junk food and smoking their life away, there should be more tax on these to help cover some of the funds the NHS spends on these problems.
With vaccinations, parents should be fined if their children succumb to the illness if they are not vaccinated, simple. They can have their homeopathic/ ignorant views, but they can also pay their dues if it all goes wrong.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
It's not just their children they're putting in danger, they could catch it, pass it to a load of more vulnerable people but recover from it themselves.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
badass
Not one person in this thread so far has suggested anything outside the extreme end of the scale. The middle ground would be that all child related allowances claimable from the government are withdrawn if you don't get your child vaccinated.
That leaves the mentally subnormal the choice. Be mentally stupid and don't go for the vaccine and lose money or be smart and get the vaccine, make the world a safer place and maintain your entitlement to child related allowances.
So the child loses out two fold, he's not protected from the disease AND his parents have less money to support him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
badass
Fair point, however the more middle ground reasonable suggestions seem to be getting drowned out by the people at the extreme end of the scale.
Much like any argument - it'd dominated by those with the extreme views, drowning out the more reasonable.
That's because it's quite difficult to have a sensible middle ground in this. Either it's the parents choice or the government forces it upon children.
I'm yet to hear a suggestion that makes any sense, when the wellbeing of the child and the greater risks are considered, that is actually feasible.
Even education is a difficult one, because those who function at a mentally lower level to such a degree that they would believe in homeopathy would claim that any attempt of education is propaganda. All the people who do pay attention to the education are much like those who have been involved in this thread, and probably vaccinated their child. Having more education than already exists would help nothing.
Unfortunately there is no cure for being so arrogant as to believe you know better than decades of medical research, so for the sake of everyone, the choice shouldn't be there.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
There are some ridiculous things being claimed in this thread.
Most of them stem from a complete guess ... that the current outbreak is due to the drop in MMR rates (exacerbated by a local media campaign) in 1997, 16 years ago. The fact that MMR rates today are the highest that they have ever been is ignored. There is no evidence to back up that guess.
There are many other things I could say but it's late and I'm tired, so instead I'll leave you this video clip (By Dr. Wakefield - he is still a Doctor BTW).
Dr. Andrew Wakefield response to the measles outbreak in South Wales
I apologise that it's 16 minutes long. I know that in this day of FB and twitter most of you couldn't even manage 1.6 minutes.
So to make it easy for you, I've indexed it. Skip to the part that interests you.
0:20 Wakefield censored by British government
1:10 MMR is not safe.
2:05 Parents should have the choice of single vaccines.
3:05 The real reason why single vaccines where withdrawn (to protect MMR !)
3:55 2 of the original 3 MMR vaccines were withdrawn after 4 years because they cause too many cases of Meningitis.
5:15 British Government knew the vaccines were dangerous.
5:40 Government refused to investigate safety of MMR that was withdrawn.
6:45 Does MMR Cause Autism ? - It does.
7:15 A rebuttal you might be thinking of
7:45 Why that rebuttal is invalid
8:45 Measles outbreak in South Wales
10:00 Why is there an outbreak in a highly vaccinated population 11:00 vaccine failure
12:13 Autism now affects 1:50 children, 1:31 boys in USA (CDC statistics)
13:00 A Challenge to the medical community - specifically Dr. David Salisbury (the guy who also said the Swine flu vaccine was safe, now linked to narcolepsy)
14:00 SKB given indemnity from prosecution for Meningitis caused by MMR.
15:50 A challenge to exonerate MMR in open, scientific debate
There are a few other things you might be interested in. Professor John Walker-Smith, who was also struck off at the same time as Wakefield http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/9128147/MMR-doctor-wins-battle-against-being-struck-off.html
The GMC was reprimanded for the way it handled the case.
The CDC has recently published that there has been a significant increase in autism rates from 1 in 87 to 1 in 50 in the past 5 years. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr065.pdf
Here are my personal beliefs ...
MMR is not as safe or effective as we are led to believe.
Measles is not as dangerous as we are led to believe (it is nasty).
Vaccines are given an unjustified special status which allows many to be rushed to market without adequate safety trials.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
He still has his Doctorate. But he was struck off for fraud. You can't get a worse person to speak on the subject matter than someone who fraudulantly presented his case. I mean why on earth choose him.....
He is not allowed to practice medicine, or research. He is a convicted fraudster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
Here are my personal beliefs ...
MMR is not as safe or effective as we are led to believe.
Measles is not as dangerous as we are led to believe (it is nasty).
Vaccines are given an unjustified special status which allows many to be rushed to market without adequate safety trials.
So why do people make us believe MMR vaccination is safe if it isn't. Why would NICE, all the non-competing companies and researchers in the field not identify that.
Just ask yourself, is taking the advice of a convicted fraudster really a good idea? Who else is saying this, where is a peer reviewed paper, some meta analysis?
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
On a related topic, I made a formal complaint to the BBC about incorrect measles related statistics (i.e. propaganda) in their news stories.
Their story claimed
Quote:
Before the introduction of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination in 1988, about half a million children caught measles and about 100 died from it each year in the UK.
This is wrong. Prior to 1988 there where <100k cases and ~10 deaths per year.
The haven't replied to me but they have amended their story. It now states
Quote:
Prior to the introduction of the Measles vaccination in 1968, around half a million children caught measles and about 100 died from it each year in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22025104
This is correct. How do I (and they) know this ? From the Office for National Statistics (I sent this link to the BBC). http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733835814
So how do you know I'm telling the truth ? Well there are plenty of other stories that they haven't yet corrected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22061947
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22048635
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22051927
Why would the BBC be sensationalising in this manner ?
So in answer to the OP, no vaccines should not be compulsory. Not while national news agencies continue to distort facts and suppress scientific discussion.
