Delusions can be contagious!!UC

[delirium]

I understand that some people cannot vaccinate their children for various reasons. However it is the people who choose not to for their own reasons. I do not believe anyone can be made to do anything so I guess they have every right not to vaccinate, however are these people relying on the rest of us vaccinating our children to protect theirs? What happens if no one vaccinated their children? Can these people tell me that we would not have larger outbreaks of devastating disease?
I'm sure given the possibility (however slight) of a critically ill child and a vaccination, I know what I would be choosing.

I doubt no one will vaccinate their kids, if that times comes, then I agree, we'll have huge issues. Vax rates are around the 90% mark, enough for a reasonable herd immunity. Until the day rates drop below 50% as a vaxxer I support choice.

I agree with you in your stance on vaxxing. I did reading and I firmly feel vaxxing is the best way to aid in communicable diseases being held at acceptable levels. I also agree that herd immunity is keeping un vaxxed kids relatively safe from disease. But what other parents do with their child is their business. My kids are up to date and covered, and that's all I can control. It doesn't bother me my kids are part of the herd immunity for non vaxxers. I would have got the shots whether it did or not.

I agree with the authors core values, and some of what she says. But there is a tone of being quite patronising and sarcastic. Those that don't vaxx, don't bc they believe it's detrimental to their child. I disagree... but again they aren't my kids...

I do not support a nanny state

[babyla]

I'm not sure of his motivations but he has some interesting ideas on eugenics and controlling the world's population. Direct involvement means nothing and it does certainly not equate to truth or knowledge, more so to bias and personal power.

He's probably got interesting ideas on a lot of things. Direct involvement equates to something, it may not equate to absolute truth or absolute knowledge but it does add to the dialogue surrounding the issue.

[HazTechDad]

I'm not sure of his motivations but he has some interesting ideas on eugenics and controlling the world's population. Direct involvement means nothing and it does certainly not equate to truth or knowledge, more so to bias and personal power.

His "views on eugenics" have been twisted and taken completely out of context by many people, including the anti-vaccination community. What Gates advocates in relation to population is nothing radical. I remember learning exactly the same things in High School 20 years ago.

The theory says that if you reduce the child (and overall) mortality rate in a society, that society produces less children. The reason behind it is that in undeveloped societies, parents expect to be looked after by their children in old age. When you have high mortality, those parents choose to have large numbers of children so they have a better chance of being looked after in old age, amongst other reasons. They assume many of their children will die.

So, if you can reduce the mortality rate and improve education and living standards, then the society changes and the birth rate decreases, which benefits (almost) everyone.

As Gates has made clear on many occasions: He promotes health, education and living standard programs in order to improve people's lives in 3rd world countries, and to reduce the growing pressure from the World's unsustainable population growth. There is nothing sinister in those motives.

[goldtoe]

There is an old saying you have to spend money to make money, I think that's what Bill Gates does. I don't think he has an informed stance on everything he spends money on. I also think it is a drop in the ocean for him, I sponsor a child in a third world country

That's a lot of thinking and not much research. Gates did plenty of research before parting with tens of billions (a very big chunk of his net worth). How arrogant must a person be to compare their $50/month to this? Unless you live in a cardboard shack, it is a pittance. And probably achieves nothing. Aid to Africa has mostly done more harm than good in the long run. The Gates foundation is trying to change that.

[jaesmummy]

So should we as a community accept everything that science, research and governments tell us is "good for us"? Don't I, as a citizen of this country, have the right to question a course of injections that are being given to my child? To challenge the research? Bloody oath I do!! Not because of arrogance but because it's my right AS a citizen. In 1951, "scientists" synthisised a drug to help pregnant ladies with morning sickness, and as a sedative. Almost 5 years after, an Australian doctor made the link between a large number of serious birth defects and the drug Thalidomide. A number of years ago, I was taking a medication for back pain - completely safe, until people, years later, started having heart attacks. It's since been withdrawn. I'm sure there's many, many more. By no means am I telling people NOT to immunise their children - but I won't be told by anyone that I'm rude to investigate whether or not I should!

[goldtoe]

Why the quotes around scientists? You hint at something and then wander off in another direction.
Thalidomide is a very important lesson, but you seem to have missed the point of that lesson. It was (and is) a very effective drug. It performed well in the trials, and millions of women benefited from it. The problem was in lack of follow-up after it was approved. There was a rare but severe side effect that should have been caught much earlier.
McBride and Lenz proved the connection by actual science, not by reading crank websites. By all means, feel free to do the same. But you will have to be extremely well resourced to do better than all the professionals who have already studied this. And yes, you can in part thank the Thalidomide experience for how thoroughly treatments are tested today for safety as well as efficacy.

[Ffrenchknickers]

So should we as a community accept everything that science, research and governments tell us is "good for us"? Don't I, as a citizen of this country, have the right to question a course of injections that are being given to my child? To challenge the research? Bloody oath I do!! Not because of arrogance but because it's my right AS a citizen. In 1951, "scientists" synthisised a drug to help pregnant ladies with morning sickness, and as a sedative. Almost 5 years after, an Australian doctor made the link between a large number of serious birth defects and the drug Thalidomide. A number of years ago, I was taking a medication for back pain - completely safe, until people, years later, started having heart attacks. It's since been withdrawn. I'm sure there's many, many more. By no means am I telling people NOT to immunise their children - but I won't be told by anyone that I'm rude to investigate whether or not I should!

Completely agree, well said.

[HazTechDad]

So should we as a community accept everything that science, research and governments tell us is "good for us"? Don't I, as a citizen of this country, have the right to question a course of injections that are being given to my child? To challenge the research? Bloody oath I do!! Not because of arrogance but because it's my right AS a citizen. In 1951, "scientists" synthisised a drug to help pregnant ladies with morning sickness, and as a sedative. Almost 5 years after, an Australian doctor made the link between a large number of serious birth defects and the drug Thalidomide. A number of years ago, I was taking a medication for back pain - completely safe, until people, years later, started having heart attacks. It's since been withdrawn. I'm sure there's many, many more. By no means am I telling people NOT to immunise their children - but I won't be told by anyone that I'm rude to investigate whether or not I should!

Nobody is suggesting that people don't question. After all, that is the entire basis of science. If people didn't question, then the thalidomide link to birth defects would never have been found.

Unfortunately, when performing such investigation people may begin to believe hear-say, anacdotes etc over properly conducted research.

For example, look at Autism. There are a few anti-vaccinationists who still claim a link between autism and MMR (despite the only study ever finding a link being found to be fraudulent).

Even ignoring the fraud, the study was of just 12 hand-picked children and only hinted at a link. On the other side, there are numerous published studies, the largest of which included over 500,000 children.

Yet, despite the fraud and the incredible difference in the size and quality of the studies, there are numerous parents who insist that the fraudulent study of 12 kids holds as much (or more) weight than the proper study of 500,000 kids.

Why? Is it a lack of understanding? An inability to assign weight to the evidence? A general distrust of authority/expertise? All of the above?


I am all for the investigation and questioning of any procedure or medication. But it must be done on a rational basis or there's no point.


On the topic of thalidomide (which is still in use as a cancer treatment amongst other things -just not for pregnant women-). Let's not forget that while the outcome of prescribing it to pregnant women was tragic, it occurred over 50 years ago. Think about that for a moment. 50 years. In terms of scientific and medical advancement, it may as well have been the dark ages. Computers essentially didn't exist. We hadn't yet gone in to space. TV had just been invented. People still drove around with their kids on their laps, and most cars didn't even have seatbelts.

Thalidomide was tested for safety as a sedative, but was never tested in pregnant women. Despite this, it was prescribed to them. It was the thalidomide incident that caused huge changes in the approval procedure for drugs, including at least three rounds of clinical trials for every drug. It's also why drugs have specific ratings now for use during pregnancy.

Vioxx was voluntarily withdrawn after the slight heart attack risk increase became known. This increased risk became apparent during a long-term clinical trial, and once known caused the manufacturer to withdraw it. In other words, it was withdrawn because of scientific research, not in spite of it.