Why did you choose to vaccinate your child?

[Beautiful Disaster]

Mine is fully vax too and never a reaction. I trusted the drs like a pp said

[wysiwyg]

There are lots of things that have impacted my decision - some of them directly and some indirectly.

Indirectly, my degree is in Molecular Biology and I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry (only in IT) - these I suppose influence the way I see things rather than have had a direct influence on decision to vaccinate.

Directly

- the concept of risk - I read all sorts of information but couldn't find anything that would suggest that for my children the risk of vaccinating was greater than the risk of not vaccinating. This wasn't really about the risk of catching anything - as that I feel I really have little control over but the risk of significant (life altering) problems associated with contracting anything when not vaccinated is far greater than the risk of problems if catch something when vaccinated, and than side effects from vaccination.

- the logical conclusion of not vaccinating - I felt if I didn't vaccinate I would have to be prepared for everyone else to not vaccinate too - and wanted to look at what that would mean. Looking at some of the information about outbreaks of measles in particular in the past 10 years in the developed world, as well as disease rates prior to introduction of the various vaccinations was enough to convince me that a situation of no one vaccinating wasn't something I wanted to return to - and seeing as my children and family have shown no issues which might indicate any problems with vaccination then I felt is something should do.

- the motivations of key players - much of the information about not vaccinating all paints a not great picture of pharma companies and governments. There was too much of this and not enough science. I believe the motivations of pharma companies and governments are quite transparent really - and easier to get to the bottom of than individuals (e.g. the whole Wakefield saga), and I have to say I trust them more. I found many of the things said about pharma companies and government motivation not to make logical sense. Pharma companies would love to make combined and single vaccines (they spend all their time trying to come up with as many formulations of one drug as possible - that's the way they make money) - the motivation behind combining is more to do with compliance with a schedule being easier than anything. Vaccines are also not that profitable - they can't charge whatever they want and don't have a wide array of customers - there are not that many players left in pharma industry who still make vaccines because they just are not that profitable in terms of other things could spend their money on. The government well I just don't understand what their motivation might be to spend a fortune on vaccination if not necessary. So the overall conspiracy theory air around vaccination I just can't buy into at all.

[wysiwyg]

Good evening, everyone.

It has been brought to the attention of the moderating team that one of the articles on the main site is very anti-vaccination. While some people have no issue with this, there are others that object because they see it as innappropriate.

I would like to write an article that attempts to contrast both sides of the vaccination debate fairly. It is really hard to find unbiased information out there, and if possible, I'd like to try and create a resource that could really help new parents to make one of the hardest decisions in their young child's life.

In this thread, I am looking for comments from parents who chose to vaccinate their children, with regards to why they made that choice. Please note that any comments you make here will probably be used in the article, but if you desire, I will make you anonymous.

This thread will be moderated and any flaming will be removed. This is not a discussion thread. Do not debate the choices others have made.

Thank you.

Did this article ever happen?

I don't object to the anti-vaccination information, but the way some of it is presented does make me uncomfortable - I would like to see when links are posted on FB such as the one today about using Vitamin C to treat Whooping cough - that they should provide information about the source or the article - and the philosophies of that group - as the names of the groups are often misleading. Often this could be copied and pasted from the About page of the website in question for example.

[BellyBelly]

That article has full references down the bottom. The one I posted yesterday, the graph of outbreaks, was directly from the SA govt website. Its government data.

It is very hard to find fully referenced AND accurate data. I have even spoken to magazine publishers about it - everyone has trouble sourcing balanced info.

The Sears Vaccine Book is what I have heard to be very balanced and unbiased, but the vaccines are US based, so not all may apply to Australia.

[wysiwyg]

I understand that the article has references down the bottom - but the post doesn't give any indication who the International Medical Council on Vaccination are - and who is publishing the information does have a bearing on how people interpret it - it is important to understand any bias so then you can make your own informed decision. I don't believe you can just take the presence of references as credibility I like to know who is publishing the info too.

For example if I see a link to a study on use of paracetamol in young children - if it is published on the paracetamol manufacturers website then I know the bias present and can make my own judgement call on it. Or people might see a link to something on BellyBelly and because they know what BellyBelly is about and its ethos they interpret the article in a certain way. Linking to articles that are published by bodies that are largely unknown to the audience without any explanation I don't think helps either way.

Of course people can dig around and find what the International Medical Council on Vaccination are all about, where they are based etc themselves but many people will share that link and never delve into that.

(The disclaimers on The Conversation site are a great example of how it can be done).

Is like the linking of articles from The Daily Mail in the UK, that paper and website is a terrible example of journalism (is like a cross between Chat Magazine and the Herald Sun), and being from the UK I know to be wary of anything I read in there, but here in Australia people would not necessarily know that.

[HotI]

If you don't trust the source to use credible sources, you are probably not going to trust the source to give a description of who their source is. One person's description of the AVN is going to be quite different to another person's. If you don't know who the Medical Council on Vaccination (as an example) is there is always google.

[BellyBelly]

If you click 'About Us' which is up the top left of their website, you will see the medically trained doctors who make for the international medical council on vaccination.

The author of that particular article:

"I am conventionally educated, and allopathically trained. Prior to medical school, I earned a bachelor’s degree in physics from Rutgers University. After working for two years as the head technician in a research biochemistry lab, I went to Temple University School of Medicine, and graduated in 1993. I then explored the area of social medicine in the Bronx, NY and completed a 3-year medical residency. At this juncture, the failures of primary care medicine were obvious to me. “Prevention” really just meant prescribing drugs and hunting down disease as early as possible. Despite this approach, people often just get sicker, and require more drugs and ultimately develop degenerative diseases."

[wysiwyg]

Yes I have read the 'About us' - and the whole article. How many people do dig around for this - what harm can be done by pasting their 'About us' into the BB link or as first comment. I call that helpful. I agree about how hard it is to find good sources if is a good source then I think the 'about us' gives it more credibility than a Google search on the organization - so why not?


I didn't say I didn't trust the source, I just think it is responsible and useful to provide the information to the reader and the sites own description of themselves is fine.

[BellyBelly]

Absolutely I could see how that could improve credibility of whats being posted for sure. Its harder on FB than a forum where you can combine it in one post - and often I dont add extras in as I get so very time poor. But also people share loads of information across the web, all of the time - its not the norm adding in history of where the article came from unless a site has specifically published that article.

I also think we all need to take just a liitle bit of personal responsibility too Especially when researching something as serious as whooping cough. I am am 'about us' reader