The whole debate seems very black and white, yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

You know sometimes things really are black and white. Just because there are two different views doesn’t mean the truth lies somewhere near the middle. The fact is that the media insist on presenting two opposing views as if they are of equal merit and sometimes they’re not.

Surely someone (with no links to government and or drug companies) should conduct an impartial balanced study

You mean like the Cochrane reviews?

In the name of science let’s revisit this thread in 20 years and compare the lives and health of those vaccinated an unvaccinated. I’m up for it.

Why wait 20 years? Vaccines aren’t new, just look at the last 20 years to see the impact. Incidentally this has been done and the balance is massively in favour of vaccination.

Chipsandgravy
I’m sorry you feel that you cannot make a decision.
I feel that what you are saying is that in reality you do not understand how medical research works so you need to find someone you feel you can trust to tell you the truth?
My solution:
1) Either learn how it works and then look at the evidence (see the concrete vs grain of sand analogy up there)
2) Trust the scientists who have an enormous task of meeting all the checks and balances before a vaccine is allowed to go into production.
3) Do neither but snipe from the sidelines about how it is all wrong. (which I think is what drives the pissed offness of the majority of scientists)

Just because there are two different views doesn’t mean the truth lies somewhere near the middle.

This ^^^
It’s like tottally completly the most oftenestly commmmittted logical phallusy on the planet innit. ((sic) for the pedants)

This thread and it’s topic is repeated countless times on the web. In many cases the the pro vac crew resort to aggression and ridicule towards anyone that dares to question the issue. The whole debate seems very black and white, yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

The reason being is that we are very much in the ‘Tom Baker’s Sea Captain from Blackadder ‘ territory. Apparently for some people, 99 well researched, documented and logical scientific studies are of equal weight to the ravings of a demented idiot. If that is the case, you are never going to solve the problem.

cf. Climate Change

cf. Climate Change

Its a symptom of general science denialism/mistrust thing that we need to solve.

The whole debate seems very black and white, yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

I agree there are millions and millions of idiots with opinions on this.
If you want balanced facts why are you citing from agenda led sources that think they are bad and then they produce evidence that shows this? The ex navy seal dad who blamed it for his sons development issues for example. Parents with ill children who blame the vaccine etc. These are anecdotes and they are not balanced facts. Folk get cross because your evidence is poor/not actually evidence and you ignore the actual evidence and say things like government held view, tow the party line etc

As others not the Cochrane collaboration* provide what you want

The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations [ rarely what those anti sites claim – see cougars phallacy] but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.

As simple as it can be said . Take your pick as to which risk you wish to expose your child to but you CANNOT eliminate it completely. The vaccination route is the least risky of the two choices by large factor. Millions died of the disease for example.

* makes me think of an acid Jazz band for some reason.

FWIW they even discuss how best to communicate the information to the masses

http://www.cochrane.org/features/do-interventions-aimed-communities-inform-and-educate-about-childhood-vaccination-improve-o

The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations … but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.

This x1000

Vaccination is about accepting that the population as a whole benefits even if, for some individuals, there are side effects.

This is true for *all* drugs prescribed – they all have adverse effects on somebody but, overall, they treat disease successfully.

It does not mean that autism is a proven side effect of a vaccine though.

The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations … but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.

This x1000

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn’t because it doesn’t exist .

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn’t because it doesn’t exist

Well does it or not?

How many soldiers were vaccinated and how many claim to have the syndrome?

To repeat – it’s about looking at the vaccinated population as a whole. Even if an adverse reaction is observed it may still be less than the number who would have been more badly affected by the disease.

It’s like this statistic. We could save cyclists lives by making helmets compulsory but overall more people would die;

What has Gulf War Syndrome got to do with general vaccines. Serving soldiers who were expected to face chemical biological weapons were given drugs to ensure they continued to function within a relitvely short time frame any one who thought the sort of stuff they needed to combat nerve agents would be without long term harm was willfully blind. My mates who were in the BOAR in the 80s all knew that the stuff issued was going to harm them and expressed considerable reservations about ever using it.

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn’t because it doesn’t exist .

Soldiers who were exposed to intense physical and psychological stress as well as depleted uranium, oil well fires, nerve gas, anthrax, nerve gas antidote and anthrax vaccine.

Yeah, it was probably really due to their MMR vaccinations 🙄

Funny how the anti-vacc lot never seem interested in the horrific side effects inherent in not vaccinating, isn’t it.

@Cougar. Bit of a sweeping generalisation there. Plus extreme statements of “horrific” and “never”

The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations [ rarely what those anti sites claim – see cougars phallacy] but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.

This from @JY I agree with the first part about occasional complications, whether the risk is massively less than the disease depends entirely on the vaccine/disease and whether an alternative route was followed, eg MMR single vs multiple

Plus extreme statements of “horrific”

I’d post the results of a Google Image search for “smallpox” but it’s not really suitable for this site.

Suffice to say that “horrific” is fairly accurate, but luckily smallpox was wiped out by…. vaccinations! yay!

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn’t because it doesn’t exist .
Soldiers who were exposed to intense physical and psychological stress as well as depleted uranium, oil well fires, nerve gas, anthrax, nerve gas antidote and anthrax vaccine.

Yeah, it was probably really due to their MMR vaccinations

Wow soldiers were exposed to Anthrax . Funny because they never found any .

@Cougar. Bit of a sweeping generalisation there.

I’m terribly sorry. Can you cite me an example of an anti-vac site or organisation which highlights the dangers of not vaccinating? I’ll cheerfully withdraw my generalisation then.

Plus extreme statements of “horrific” and “never”

Dunno about you, but I’d consider “death” to be a fairly horrific side effect. You think maybe they’ll get better?

Quick example for you of a non-horrific side effect of not vaccinating.

Sign me up.

whether the risk is massively less than the disease depends entirely on the vaccine/disease and whether an alternative route was followed, eg MMR single vs multiple

Two points

1. If you take the vaccination you are vaccinated so no 🙄

2. Can you name a vaccination where the risk of complications/side affects are greater than the risks of the disease?

CAN YOU ? if not that “fact” is a baseless claim.

Well done for cherry picking the facts their may be complications…cognitive bias in action matched with ignoring the facts that refute your beliefs.
Well done

Wow soldiers were exposed to Anthrax . Funny because they never found any .

Hmmm.. so you believe them when they say there was no anthrax, but you don’t believe them when they say that ”anthrax vaccine is not a likely cause of Gulf War illness”?

Some people may call that confirmation bias.

Some people may call that confirmation bias.

I call it a straw man. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Yeah that too.

yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

sadly it was showing apparent balance that lead to the MMR hoax taking hold so ferociously. Simplistic editorial balance meant having one voice for the majority, established, evidence based medical sector and another voice for a lawyer-sponsored medical fraud and later for a handful of pretend-medical practitioners from the alternative medicine sector.

This was happening when the ‘Nutrionist’ fad was starting to gain traction. Nutrionism is new-agism re-packaged in every way possible to look like it might be real fact based science, and backed by lots of marketable product. At the time of the MMR hoohah nobody really knew (and the media certainly didn’t seem to realise) that a ‘Nutrionist’ wasn’t a doctor, even if he or she had a Harley Street address, and gave practioners from the movement airtime as if they were.

The problem with this ‘balance’ is it appears to make the issue 50:50. even though the weight and validity of argument falls extremely heavily one way.

The hoax was the fault of one doctor. He was paid to perpetrate the hoax because some lawyers wanted some ready-mix data for a court case which hinged on two events that coincided – they didn’t have the evidence they needed to create a causal link for two-things-that-just-happened-to-occur-at-the-same-time for their case so they paid for the evidence to be created.

The hoax shouldn’t and wouldn’t have had any traction outside that court room if it hadn’t been seized upon by the alternative medical sector – who are primarily marketeers – and if any coverage of the issue hadn’t been ‘balanced’.

The balance presented is akin to the world knowing that white is white, but me suspecting that white is black. BBC breakfast decide to do an item on ‘white’ and both me and a world respected authority in hue are invited onto the couch to present out arguments. He says a 30 second bit, I say a 30 second bit, he counters my argument, I say I’m sticking to it and thats the exactly the sort of thing people like him who are so called experts would say, Bill Turnbull interrupts to say that all they have time for, now lets go the news and weather where you are. The audience is left to conclude that white might be grey.

Unfortunately ‘balance’ these days is pretty much reduced to “Geoff says ‘Daddy’, Arthur says ‘Chips’ text us on 86755 and tell us what you think”

*applauds*

excellent summary there Mr Mac.

Is it time to post Dara again?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg[/video]

He talks a bit about “balance” here.

BBC have also been challenged on this re AGW as well for the same reason

Balance is fine but there is a problem with balance as it massively overrepresents and legitimises alternative fringe views

the internet does not help as you will find evidence to support anything if you search well enough

There is another aspect – the MMR bullshit is no more or less compelling bullshit that every anti-oxidant / superfood / ….causes cancer /…. cures cancer / single tablet cures chronic condition only weeks away story we hear every day.

Non of those stories ever gain any real traction, they’re quickly forgotten. MMR scaremongering worked because theres nobody more doubtful of their actions than the parent of a young child.

Unfortunately theres nobody more ready to tell a parent the thing they are about to do is wrong than self appointed, self qualifying, self important quasi medical arseholes. Particularly if they’ve got a book out.

Quite.

In a way I’m sad that this is even a discussion. But if people end up better informed as a result, that’s a good thing, right?

I get that folk want to do the best for their kids, I really do. I can’t imagine what it’d be like to get this sort of decision wrong. And it’s not without precedence; the mothers who took Thalidomide, for a start.

But. This really is a no-brainer. As a parent it must be awful, and perfectly natural, to be dithering over what to do; sitting there thinking “well I don’t know, you hear these stories…” And you do, they’re endemic; but they are stories spun by idiots, the ignorant, attention-seekers, and people looking to sell newspapers or otherwise profit from the disadvantaged. Do yourself, your kids, and frankly society as a whole a favour and ignore them.

Vaccinate your children. Do it now. Trust me, I’m a doctor geek with a dogged compulsion to question everything.

Not that it makes any real odds, but my Mrs is a doctor and we still had a brief “what if” moment before we got our kids vaccinated.

As you say, it’s only natural.

Of course. And rightly so.

FWIW I missed the MMR jab with my eldest as we were abroad when they sent the appointment and for the date – we were only gone 10 days. We then could not do the next one as he had a cold and they refused. The amount of literature the state bombarded us with with was startling. there was no way of saying we know and we will. Eventually, when he had it done, he cried more when they took his hat off than when he had the injection.

I agree with cougar all parents want to protect their kids from harm. unfortunately we cannot do it and we have to make choices. The best one ,for them and everyone else’s children, is to vaccinate.

Its scary and you are nervous, as you are with many events with them but it is a no brainer.

GrahamS – Member
Wow soldiers were exposed to Anthrax . Funny because they never found any .
Hmmm.. so you believe them when they say there was no anthrax, but you don’t believe them when they say that “anthrax vaccine is not a likely cause of Gulf War illness”?

Some people may call that confirmation bias.

POSTED 47 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Since they dispute that Gulf war syndrome actually exists then it would be difficult for them to claim Anthrax vaccine was a cause .

And just so we are clear here are you still claiming that anthrax was in Iraq to be used as a weapon ?

Statistically representative scientific debate.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg[/video]

Unfortunately ‘balance’ these days is pretty much reduced to “Geoff says ‘Daddy’, Arthur says ‘Chips’ text us on 86755 and tell us what you think”

Daddy. No, chips!

Plus extreme statements of “horrific” and “never”

Here’s another timely anecdote, just popped up on another thread.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-had-chicken-pox-vaccine#post-6534727

Having seen the consequences over the years of viral infections with kids turning into sepsis the more you can eliminate the better. The use of “horrific” and “never” aren’t extreme, there’s a very good reason they immunise against these illnesses.

I had no hesitation making sure my kids are up to day with immunisations.

I’ve just added my pics to that thread. We got away with her life, just.

Lots of reading HEREand it’s worth a giggle typing in Gillian McKeith in the site search bar.

another study on MMR and autism