Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin2
i'm not confused. i'm very clear on my thoughts thank you very much. and i am clear on the report, otherwise i wouldn't have mentioned it.
i'm sorry but i thought it was common knowledge that the study (wrongly) suggested the combined vaccine carried a high risk of autism. and so parents naturally went for the separate vaccines, carrying the lower risk (according to the report)
so therefore, my point was if the vaccines where to become compulsory, parents may perhaps be more comfortable with the idea of separate vaccines instead of the combined one. regardless of the fact the report has had all support withdrawn.
if you don't understand now i'm sorry, i've tried to explain in a multitude of different ways.
|
How is any of this a response to what I said?? You asked me to give you some more detail about why my children haven't had all their vaccinations so that you could understand where I was coming from, but your response seems to consist entirely of banging on about Wakefield and MMR, which is emphatically
not where I am coming from.
My objection to making vaccination compulsory is that there are situations (and I believe my children's is one), where the current evidence base would not support excluding a child from the programme, but where careful research by an interested party (which, realistically, is more likely to be a parent than a doctor, as regards any particular child) tends to suggest that avoiding a vaccination may be prudent following a risk/benefit analysis which takes into consideration the seriousness of the disease being vaccinated against.
I'm not particularly interested in whether anyone thinks my decision is clinically sound (not least because I have deliberately not included enough detail for anyone to make that assessment). But surely the point of debate here is whether or not such an example successfully highlights the flaws in a compulsory vaccination scheme.
If you can't be bothered to respond to what's actually been said ... well, why respond at all?