Genuine question for anti-vaxxers

Oh. I understood. I didn’t believe it though.

I don’t research. So I wouldn’t publish my thoughts. I work in a different job.

Of course not.

I think part of the difference is that Wakefield's paper was peer reviewed and published in a very reputable journal. Most people, even if they had nothing to do with research, were aware of The Lancet and its reputation for high quality research. That means those of us who believed his research to be valid at the time can console ourselves with the fact he fooled a lot of eminent scientists too.

I'm not anti-vaxx - in fact I got covid and flu vaccines last week. However, I do believe it is difficult to get unbiased information due to the agenda our governments and health services have. They are aiming for herd immunity so it is not in their interest to have people deciding not to get vaccines so the potential for damage tends to be downplayed. An awareness of that agenda makes people, rightly or wrongly, more sceptical of the entire process.

So you wouldn’t cite your unpublished work?

I often wonder too if there is an element of doing the opposite to most people makes you a highly intelligent critical thinker and everyone else are just sheep.

I do somewhat understand the MMR concerns in the Wakefield era - as in why people may have had them at the time. My children were of vaccine age then and I remember being worried. Although, in the end I was more worried about the diseases themselves. I’m trying to think about why I think today’s concerns are so much different when we saw the outcome of bad information back then.

Well then you either didn't understand how research works or you caught something that the very experienced editors and reviewers in The Lancet missed. Shame you didn't publish your insights at the time.

No. I do research.

I read academic papers and draw conclusions based on the findings in those papers. I do use Google Scholar to help find relevant papers.

I don't think you know what research is. You seem to think that research can only be primary research and must be published to be valid. While I would not cite unpublished research in my own work, research does not have to be published to be research.

I was around at the time.

So you Google?

You're the person demanding peer viewed articles. Wakefield published in one of the most reputable peer reviewed medical journals. Of course people believed him. It's very easy to be sceptical in hindsight but I suspect that given your insistence on the importance of peerr reviewed publications, that if you was around at the time, you would have believed it then too.

What about my reluctance to give the MMR in the late 90's? I read a peer reviewed article in one of the most reputable medical journals that said there was a link between the MMR and autism.

Obviously I didn't know Wakefield had falsified his results and I trusted the peer review process in such a reputable journal.

That is a ridiculous statement. Of course you don't need to publish if you do research.

I'm an academic. I do research. Some of it is published, some is not. Reasons for not publishing might include: I didn't come to any interesting conclusions, I was doing the research to inform my teaching, I started in one direction and took a detour off on a more interesting direction so abandoned the initial research, I was just doing a bit of research out of personal interest.

None of my published research is related to immunology but I am certainly capable of doing research on the topic. I just wouldn't be doing primary research on the topic as that would be outside my skillset.

They seem healthier and more resilient than their vaccinated peers, and that's the data I go on.

What is the ‘data’ you have on your children’s vaccinated peers ‘seeming’ less ‘healthy and resilient?’

Oh. Please don’t say you believed Andrew Wakefield?

I had bacterial meningitis when I was 21

no immune problems or anything before. However there was an outbreak. Anyone can catch it.

exactly!!!!

I hate pee who say they’ve researched stuff

right. So to research you need to publish a paper with peer reviews and evidence then?

No! Not Google. YouTube and TikTok. Otherwise you’re just wasting your time when you’re sat on the toilet.

I do believe though most people who are anti vax don’t remember polio. Never remembered the iron lungs or knew someone who lived in one.

never knew someone who was amputated after polio or almost died from measles or small pox

Unless of course you mean your research was googling stuff?

I’m not sure (honestly, I’m not being a twat) that I’ve seen much of a legitimate example yet.

I agree.

but to research you must of written a paper stating your evidence etc

can you show me your research on the vaccines? Meaning you must of written a paper. I’d like tor was your research.

I'm not anti-vax, but my partner is. I have 2 older children who had all their vaccines and a 7 year old who has had none at all. I've spoken to my GP surgery and they won't vaccinate without the consent of both of us as they are aware of his views. Either that or a court order. Without one or the other they won't do it until DC is considered gillick competent and can consent.

His reasons are mostly related to mistrust of big pharma and the fact that money drives everything. The COVID vaccine debacle has made things worse. We personally know 3 people who had significant side effects from the COVID jab but none of them have been openly accepted as being down to the vaccine, although all told 'off the record ' that it was the likely cause.

Until there is far more transparency and about the possible adverse effects and the financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies people like him are unlikely to change their minds.

I can totally see his points, but for me I would prefer to take the small risk of DC having the vaccines than them getting a VPD

An exception to this is the COVID jab which we all refused. I work in healthcare and know clinicians who also declined

Anti vaxxers should take a walk round some old Victorian churchyard, and see the number of graves where two,three, or even more children, from the same family, had all died within just a very few weeks, from some epidemic childhood disease.