Nanny state taking things a step too far or a policy to applaud?

[vetran]

No. It was the right thing to do since:
1) The evidence that there was an issue was entirely lacking NOW, however at the time it was discussed and a number of experts took it seriously. At the time it had the same smell as the Dodgy Dossier and the Dr Kelly 'I tripped and fell on a blunt knife' saga.

2) The net benefit of the triple vaccine overall is higher than the single vaccines - not put forward with much force at the time. As I understand it the main reason for combining was in case they forgot to turn up to subsequent injections. The main reason at the time put forward was it was cheaper.

3) Most parents, if given the choice of triple vaccine or no vaccine, will sensibly adopt the former under protest or take the single vaccines. In a similar way to 'would you prefer a shot in the leg or the head?' choice.

Offering the choice (to have legacy injections) would have been the wrong thing to do - why?

as it would have increased the risk of children (and people who cannot be immunised) being damaged or dying. - fear mongering

FTFY

It was a new process which was unproven and a vaccine combination that was fairly new and anyone who objected or even questioned the validity was treated as a dangerous crank. Strangely lots of people felt manipulated.

[psychocandy]

I remember 10 years ago with the MMR scare. We paid privately to have the jabs separately because of this.

Not because we were sure the combo one was bad but just in case and we could pay for the separate ones. Not having them at all was never an option.

But knew loads of friends who said not giving little Jonny that he might get xyz because of it after seeing one news story on it. At least make an effort to get some facts.

Used to wind me up - yeh if you dont give him anything he might get abc and die anyway.

[Paddy]

When I was a school they used the same needle for all 300 kids.

[d000hg]

When I was a school they used the same needle for all 300 kids.

That must've been painful by the end.

[vetran]

I remember 10 years ago with the MMR scare. We paid privately to have the jabs separately because of this.

Not because we were sure the combo one was bad but just in case and we could pay for the separate ones. Not having them at all was never an option.

But knew loads of friends who said not giving little Jonny that he might get xyz because of it after seeing one news story on it. At least make an effort to get some facts.

Used to wind me up - yeh if you dont give him anything he might get abc and die anyway.

well the private option seemed to include loads of counterfeit jabs being issued so Jonny may well not be immunised. I don't remember anyone going to jail for that.

If they had said you can have separate jabs on the NHS if you do the online course and pass it would have been a good alternative.

[minestrone]

FTFY

It was a new process which was unproven and a vaccine combination that was fairly new and anyone who objected or even questioned the validity was treated as a dangerous crank. Strangely lots of people felt manipulated.

At least you have moved on from your pontifications on this subject, last year you were still insisting the vaccine was unsafe.

Anyone who was complaining about the vaccine was a dangerous crank, like yourself.

[VectraMan]

My parents decided I shouldn't have the Whooping Cough vaccination as there was a bit of a scare at the time. When I was two I was very ill with you guessed it: Whooping Cough.

My younger brother got the vaccination.

[vetran]

At least you have moved on from your pontifications on this subject, last year you were still insisting the vaccine was unsafe.

Anyone who was complaining about the vaccine was a dangerous crank, like yourself.

the arrogance of the medical profession is incredible.

Lets try an analogy

Rover invent a new cheaper seatbelt, there is also some suggestion that if people use the old seatbelt wrong it 'may' cause more injuries. Also if the accident is just right people using the new seatbelt may be more severely damaged than they would have been in the old seatbelt.

Other Auto manufacturers license it.
The UK make the new seatbelt mandatory in all new cars. You can get the old style seatbelt if you pay extra.

A team of 15 qualified and respected researchers suggest that the new seatbelt may be linked to an explained rise in certain accident injuries other experts are still unable to explain.

the UK response is to hand out bonuses to dealers that sell the new seatbelts.
and outlaw the old seatbelts.

Manufacturers & government accuse the researchers of falsifying their research. Attempt to discredit them using the same smear tactics used on any other person that disagrees with the government (e.g. Rose Addis)
Accuse anyone who questions the new seatbelt of being a flat earther and causing more deaths because some people may see this an excuse to not use seatbelts.

Ford & Volkswagen start investigating the new seatbelts and eventually provide inconclusive proof (I believe there are still investigations going on) that the seatbelts do about the same as the last seatbelt but their is no explanation for the rise in the obscure injuries.

Japan stop using the seatbelt.

people who are married to a mechanic accuse anyone who suggests its all a bit fishy is a bit mad and wants to ride round without a seatbelt killing innocent babies.

how close am I?

The point is it isn't a choice between being vaccinated or not, its a choice between the tried & tested old vaccine with fewer side effects and using a new one that is cheaper and is more likely to make the side effects worse.

[EternalOptimist]

good analogy, but
the problem with analogies, is that people focus on the analogy, not on the substantive argument.

5
4
3
2
1
...

[minestrone]

I cant be arsed reading that.