Six Myths About Vaccination

Eh. Neither of my children are vaccinated at this point in time, and this article doesn't upset me. It's important people make decisions based on facts, not myths. Our decision was based on our own personal risk factors and circumstances, which are constantly changing, and it's for that reason that we review out choice not to vaccinate regularly too. My opinion changes with new information. At this point, with neither of our children in childcare, both receiving breastmilk, both parents currently able to be at home the majority of the time, we feel the risk factor is low. Some things, like rotavirus and hep c, are not necessary at this age in our situation. But I don't begrudge others for whom it is.

It's annoying me how the word vaccination is being used rather than immunisation when the two are quite different.

The writer of the article has obviously started it but I think people need to be aware of how different they are and how both can be misinterpreted for each other.

What’s the difference between immunisation and vaccination?

Vaccination means having a vaccine - that is actually getting the injection.
Immunisation means both receiving a vaccine and becoming immune to a disease, as a result of being vaccinated.

Most people use the terms 'vaccination' and 'immunisation' interchangeably but their meanings are not exactly the same.



Personally, I'm pro immunisation and anti vaccination.

Its a part of life that people are going to do (or dont) things we don't agree with.

Each to their own.

I think vaccination is the right word to use here.

:

---

I think vaccination is the right word to use here.

---

I guess it depends on how you perceive it.

But I do see how in some instances they can be used interchangeably.

I personally don't like it, especially now with the cervical cancer & flu vaccine out.

That's me though.

:

---

It's annoying me how the word vaccination is being used rather than immunisation when the two are quite different

Vaccination means having a vaccine - that is actually getting the injection.
Immunisation means both receiving a vaccine and becoming immune to a disease, as a result of being vaccinated.

---

But given hardly anyone actually gets a blood test to check if they have seroconverted than the definition vaccination should be used in 99% of circumstances.

Actually those that have had their kids vaccinated have you had their blood tested to make sure they actually worked?

Why do you think it should be immunisation?

I think it should be vaccination because it is talking about the vaccination program - The giving of vaccines. It is up to the individual body whether immunisation results (whether the body forms an immune response to the exposure to the vaccine). It is not an immunisation program, because although immunisation is the aim, it is not always what happens.

I've chosen not to do vaccines that aren't on the list. My kids weren't done for chicken pox, we've never had a flu vaccine, I didn't buy into the swine/bird flu vax, or the cervical cancer one. I think they're 'fad' vax's that haven't been tested properly before they're sent out. Just not something I feel comfortable with, even though I have my mother pushing very strongly for me to have them all done.

And I get where you're coming from Eenee. Because most of my circle don't vax & I do, I feel the same way. But I do admit that I was an uninformed teen when I had my first child & I've not done enough reading even now to change my decision.

I feel pressure because I DO vaccinate. Not as much as those who don't, I know that. But even though I do, I'll still put up a pretty good argument for those who don't.

Im a huge advocate for making your own choices & am not on either side of the fence. My choice is for MY family, no one else's. So if someone makes an uneducated rant about people who don't vax, I will most definetely reply with a mostly educated argument on the reasons for NOT vaxing.

Anyone who has anything to say, says it because they have no idea, or because they know it will start trouble. Health care professionals legally aren't allowed to tell a parent not to follow the guide to vaxing unless there is a medical reason not too.

I had J vaccinated. I'm still on the fence about it, to be honest. I briefly looked into both sides of the story but neither were overly convincing for me. In the end, majority of kids are vaxxed and it is very rare that anything tragic could occur, compared to getting the disease. However, I refused Hep B and Vitamin K at birth. I will not be giving him the flu vaccine or chicken pox, I don't view those as epidemic, death guaranteed kind of viruses. They do need to develop their own immunity to some extent.

A fair few of my friends don't do vac so I have heard a lot of the anti-vac she-bang.

If anyone has any links to sound research either way, please PM it to me :)

Sadly when it comes to finding accurate, unbiased information regarding vaccination you really have to be careful where you look. These type of articles are seeking to de-bunk the myths that conspiracy theorists such as Meryl Dorey and the AVN promote as reasons not to vaccinate - and in that respect, yes they can be useful. People DO still believe that vaccines contain mercury. People DO still believe that there is a link to autism, despite that theory having been categorically found to be incorrect.

I will admit that I am incredibly skeptical of a lot of the reasons I hear from people who don't vaccinate. Things like "I use probiotics to support their immune system so they don't need vaccines" or "We use homeopathic vaccinations" or even "our better healthcare and sanitation mean that we're less likely to catch a serious illness or suffer serious complications". There is also the assumption that many non-vaxers make that those who do choose to vaccinate have not considered and thought about their decision in as much detail as any that decide against it. I have no issue with those who have taken full, accurate information into account and discussed their personal circumstances with a medical professional and then decide not to vaccinate. I do have an issue with those who have a go at me for choosing to vaccinate and tell me that I am poisoning my child unnecessarily or other such bull.

I thoug it was a good article that looked at some of the myths. It is never going to cover it all.

Personally I vaccinate. Watching my little sister become very ill because an unvaxed child brought measles into our house when she was a baby was enough for me.

Also rotavirus was not on the schedule when DS was a baby. He got rotavirus when I was pregnant with DD. it was horrendous and both of us were terribly ill. I ended up on an IV.

So threre are valid reasons to vaccinate, and to be honest, these days I feel like if I mention here on BB that I immunise, I am likely to get shot down for doing the wrong thing. My choice to vax, just as much as others choose not to. I should not be made to feel guilty here for choosing to.

:

---

I had J vaccinated. I'm still on the fence about it, to be honest. I briefly looked into both sides of the story but neither were overly convincing for me. In the end, majority of kids are vaxxed and it is very rare that anything tragic could occur, compared to getting the disease. However, I refused Hep B and Vitamin K at birth. I will not be giving him the flu vaccine or chicken pox, I don't view those as epidemic, death guaranteed kind of viruses. They do need to develop their own immunity to some extent.

A fair few of my friends don't do vac so I have heard a lot of the anti-vac she-bang.

If anyone has any links to sound research either way, please PM it to me :)

---

I have found Dr Sear's 'the vaccine book' really helpful. it is well resourced and referenced so makes it slightly easier to access further research and information that he provides. Has definitely helped our family make some inroads.

Just putting it out there that I feel no guilt for vaccinating my kids, and no, I have not had there blood tested to see if it has worked. Obviously the reasons mentioned in the article are not the only reasons that people don't vaccinate, but some of them are. I have had people say to my face several times and in several different situations that vaccinations cause autism and this is why they don't vaccinate.

:

---

At some level that is quite an amusing anecdote, and at another level - SOOOO disturbing! I cannot believe that someone who has studied so long to 'help people', could manufacture something with such a potentially detrimental impact on society.... so so wrong...

and he is right... is it too much to ask journalists to do their research properly...:rolleyes:

---

Interesting piece on the guardian about MMR and the media - included below. I have no idea about how it was covered over here but in the UK I am not that surprised that many parents chose not to vaccinate.

Also is interesting about you say that about someone studied so long to help people, it is a natural assumption to make but people don't make the same assumptions about pharma companies for example, despite the fact many many of the employees have also studied a long time to help people and that is what they want to do. He was in business too - just no-one knew it, and the fact that the research was all reported in the media as all by a Dr Wakefield and not by Wakefield inc. made a big difference to how much trust people placed in it.

:

---

Has the MMR debacle immunised the media against other scare stories?
With the measles outbreak in south Wales showing no sign of abating, British newspapers may finally be learning their lesson

Fiona Fox

Not even Andrew Wakefield can be held responsible for the false impression given by the media that doctors were split over the safety of the jab. Photograph: AFP/Getty
When Jeremy Paxman this week apologised to MMR experts on Newsnight for the shameful role played by parts of the media in the MMR crisis, he joined a chorus of soul searching over who is to blame for the ongoing measles outbreak and whether an unfounded scare story with such far-reaching consequences would get so much media attention today.

While many, like Paxman, blame the media for giving disproportionate coverage to a small study and a maverick doctor, others blame the government for bullying parents into using the combined jab and demonising Wakefield.

Others will never forgive the Lancet. I was reminded of this when questioned on the story by Lord Leveson (in the course of his inquiry into the practices of the British press), who was keen to impress on me that the media reported the claim only after a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal had published it.

For my part I can think of few players in this saga who should not indulge in a little critical self-reflection, but if I have to choose a culprit mine would be the media's serious addiction to amplified debate and controversy in the name of the principle of "journalistic balance". There is much to criticise Wakefield for, but not even he can be held responsible for the completely false impression that medical science was split down the middle on the safety of the jab. Surveys show that is what the public believed.

One senior BBC TV health reporter has told me about stand-up rows in the newsroom over his opposition to the editors' diktat that every package about MMR must feature Wakefield or his supporters alongside the mainstream view. Balanced coverage works beautifully in politics and makes entertaining viewing but when rigidly applied to science and public health it clashes with other journalistic principles like truth-telling and accuracy.

But could it happen again? In some ways the outlook is rosy. Stung by criticism of inaccurate reporting on stories like MMR, many editors now defer more to their specialist science and health reporters, who were sidelined at the height of the MMR frenzy. Like good specialists should, these journalists do battle with news editors on a daily basis over what, where and how new studies are reported – and whether they are covered at all.

Many rightly pride themselves on keeping bad science out of their newspaper just as much as getting great science in. I think there is reason to believe that under their watchful gaze extraordinary claims like those of Wakefield would not now receive such prominence for so long. A few years ago, when a teenage girl died suddenly shortly after receiving the HPV vaccine these journalists reported a possible link while emphasizing the mountain of evidence on safety. When it was discovered that there was no connection, they promptly and prominently reported this, and I am probably one of the few who even remember this short-lived vaccine scare.

The scientific community is also playing a dramatically different role now. When Wakefield made his claim 13 years ago, far too many scientists and institutions lambasted the media coverage in the same breath as refusing to speak to the media. That thousands of research scientists are now prepared to leave their ivory towers to ensure that the media have access to their expertise at times like this will help immunise us against another MMR scare.

However, only a reckless optimist would claim this could never happen again. Just as it took lots of actors to make the MMR debacle, so today the risk of another MMR does not come from the press alone. When Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was challenged by Leveson about an irresponsible cancer story, Dacre defended it by pinning the blame on an overhyped press release. Scientific journals make me nervous. When I heard that a respected, peer-reviewed toxicology journal had published a study showing that GM food caused cancer in rats I prepared for the biggest science story of the decade. Hours later it became clear that this study was deeply flawed and, in the view of many scientists, should never have passed peer review.

But it is the persistence of a certain culture and practice in newsrooms that worries me most. The media's love affair with mavericks and outliers continues to leave scientists in despair as they watch people with little or no expertise enjoying disproportionate column inches and air time on issues like climate change and child development. And while some journalists have made great strides in weaning themselves off their addiction to overly simplistic "balance" others are finding it harder to kick the habit.

Avoiding another MMR-style scare requires vigilance, which is why the Science Media Centre got together with a group of science reporters, news editors and sub editors to draft guidelines for good science reporting, which we submitted to Leveson. They were recommended in his final report. Perhaps when we finally get our new press regulator the guidelines will be adopted and we can collectively make sure that the vaccine scare we all talk about continues to be MMR.

---

Thanks for posting myturn, that was a great read :)

:

---

Actually those that have had their kids vaccinated have you had their blood tested to make sure they actually worked?

---

Yes.

:

---

The bubonic plague eradicated itself...

---

No it didn't:

http://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/disease/plague/en/

Sorry maybe eradicated was the incorrect word, decreased in number of occurrences. There that better?

Anyways I'm not coming in to this thread anymore lol as didn't come in for an argument. Each to there own, at least I support people's decision to vaccinate, heck I didn't always not vaccinate. Just saying non vaxers get the flack for disease spread when vaxed people can spread it too.

My sister had the chicken pox when we were young (I got it from kindy and kindly brought it home!), and later found out she didn't have antibodies. So she's had the vaccine, and she STILL doesn't have antibodies. She's now had chicken pox 4 or 5 times, always mildly, but she just doesn't build up antibodies to it. Weird.

Anyhoo, I was in the firm no-vax camp, but as the years have passed and I've thought more, I've changed to 'maybe', and now 'yes to some'. The measles epidemic in Wales has made me decide to definitely get the MMR for my future child. This isn't because I don't believe there is a link between MMR and Autism, because I actually do think there is a link - I know the research says there isn't, but the overwhelming anecdotal evidence of children with NO symptoms then becoming autistic proves to me that there has to be something else going on - but because there is no history of reactions of any sort to any vaccines, on both sides of our family. If I had a premmie, if there was a reaction, if my baby was born unwell in some way, of course I would reconsider. But the epidemic has shown me the need for herd 'immunity', and if the benefit is so much higher than the risk in our personal case​, then I'm happy to do it :)