Genuine question for anti-vaxxers

This is social media

If there came a time when prenatal screening for Autism was possible, it seems (very sadly) likely that it's incidence in the population would suddenly decline sharply.

Exactly this! The fact is, so many people have utterly crap immune systems; this puts them at risk of catching/developing all manner of things.

I remember during Covid, overhearing a man telling a woman how happy he was that he'd soon be getting the jab.
He was late 50s and morbidly obese. And, yes, in that moment I totally judged him, thinking if he lost some weight, he would most certainly put himself in a much better position to fight it if he did catch it.
But, no he, like so many others, viewed this jab as a magic bullet!

It’s not though is it. I agree with the poster here. SM is Facebook/instagram etc where you have your name and are sharing personal stuff. This is an anonymous forum. That’s not social media. Not in my book and not in most people’s. Think you are being deliberately obtuse tbh

Don't be ridiculous. The chances of dying from one of the 3 diseases was very slight, particularly in a well nourished cohort.

I agree with another poster who highlighted that the term "antivaxxer" is loaded and in many cases causes unnecessary stereotyping.

I was vaccinated as a child, my children are also vaccinated. I found it a challenge to come to a decision regarding the MMR jab, but do agree that we now live in a society where as parents, we haven't experienced the first hand affects of childhood diseases.

However, I did not and still would not consider the COVID vaccine for either myself or my children. I have many reasons for it, but a reason that may cause some to pause for thought is this:

2 years ago whilst pregnant with my DD, I was offered both the flu jab (which I accepted) and the COVID jab. I politely declined the COVID jab as for me, the benefits did not outweigh the risks to me. The midwife was quite condescending and forceful in response, suggesting I really ought to do it for the benefit of my unborn child.

2 years down the line, COVID vaccinations are NOT recommended for pregnant women. I'm yet to research the reasons as to why - but I'm very pleased I stuck to my own thoughts and feelings by going against the "advice' given. I would have had a vaccination that is NOT recommended for pregnant women.

With this, I do suggest everyone makes their own, informed choice surrounding vaccinations. I also don't think people should be unnecessarily branded with loaded terms such as "antivaxxers". I find it interesting to see that the responses of those who are all for every vaccine are often somewhat aggressive/rude, in comparison to the somewhat less aggressive responses from those with more open minded views.

It doesn't actually mean anything in and of itself. It's an interjection used to indicate a variety of things including surprise, understanding, relief, pleasure etc. So no, I don't know what your response meant.

The thing about Wakefield that really pisses me off, is the response to not vaccinate meant people would prefer a dead child to an autistic child.

Yes, of course it has since been discredited. That is not in dispute.

However, that wasn't what I asked. You said you understood it but did not believe it when it was published back in 1998. I am curious as to the grounds on which you dismissed it at the time.

You don’t know what ahh means?

I'm also still interested by what you meant with this response.

So do you not think it’s been proven that his work was invalid now?

Yes. I asked "Other than a belief, on what grounds did you believe his research was invalid?" and your response was to laugh.

Justify what belief? About Andrew Wakefield?

or research?

I mean I don’t think people who read medical studies who maybe dont understand the terminology or understand what’s been before the study. Can say they’ve truly researched it. No. I think you need to do more than google links.

So basically, you can't provide any data to justify your belief? That is really no different to someone today dismissing the research that shows the positive effects of vaccines without any data to back up their position.

Obviously his research was wrong as he falsified the data but that was not known at the time and many eminent scientists accepted his work as having merit. The Lancet is one of the most reputable journals in its field, with fewer than 5% of submitted articles accepted. They all go through a rigorous peer review process so most people who know anything about research would at least believe the article had merit and was making a valid contribution to the topic.

That's exactly what I'm saying: people aren't obliged to 'offer an example'. It couldn't be less of anyone else's business. That's what I meant by 'the end'. This notion that we are entitled to other people's medically information is frankly bizarre.
If you have your vaccine, you're protected. And if it turns out you're not protected, that is an issue between you and the vaccine, not between you and the person who has chosen - for whatever reason - to not to have taken said vaccine.

I think it’s been an incredible thread. Extremely interesting.

it’s always good to listen to others and their views on things. Might not always agree but I think it’s great

😂😂

According to Google, approximately 14% of American kids have ADHD, and 3% have Autism.

IF vaccines are the cause of those things, then you need to weigh up if that percentage of children would suffer side effects, and the severity of those side effects, or death, from an illness, should they catch one when unvaccinated.

Other issues such as asthma and autoimmune diseases have been speculated to have been found in much higher number in vaccinated children.

I think to assume there are zero or very few negative effects of vaccine and many negative effects of not vaccinating, is naive.

I'm on the fence about traditional vaccines, but mRNA vaccines I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole. I think they need much more research. If that makes me antivaxx then so be it.

If you don't research, how could you have known that his research was invalid? You would, at the very least, have had to research how to set up a study to determine whether his was methodologically appropriate.

Other than a belief, on what grounds did you believe his research was invalid?

Oh, and nobody is going to publish your or anyone else's thoughts unless it is an editorial.

A lightbulb moment? Please share.

The reality is that the impact of most diseases that have vaccines are significantly reduced on healthy, well-nourished individuals so looking at the impact in the past is not necessarily an indicator of current potential impact.

I, and most of the kids in the neighbourhood, had measles as a child. It was crap but none of us suffered long term effects. The impact on my parents' generation was much more severe as malnourishment was much more common. That said, we do need herd immunity to protect the vulnerable.

I mean to be fair some people have given their reasons. Along the lines of - if they gave their child a vax and that child sustained injury, that's on THEM. If they get the disease that's a natural event. Now I don't personally agree with that. My kids have had all their jabs but just can at least understand what they're saying. And also I imagine that people who are anti vax possibly wouldn't be if enough others were too, for us to lose herd immunity. While we do (for the most part) have herd immunity in the UK for most vax preventable diseases i imagine it's just not something they concern themselves with.

Ahhh 😊