Can somebody please explain the anti-vax argument to me?!

[Discopanda]

I keep stumbling across vaccinating vs anti-vax arguments on FB parenting pages but I'm still not getting why people are choosing not to vaccinate their children. I thought the whole autism thing was discredited and that was only referring to the combined MMR. It's obviously a very sensitive subject among mums but I feel really ignorant not knowing the other side of the argument.

Bulbasaur, that wasn't what I was saying at all. Of course it's impossible to avoid all risk. (It didn't help that my post got cut off because I was in a rush this morning).

What I was saying is, it's confusing and worrying to be told that diseases, which you might not even catch, carry risks, but to be told oh no the vaccine doesn't have any risks at all, don't be silly, hurry up then, let us do it, stop asking questions.

That makes me go woah, wait, hang on a second! I wanted to know 1, what was the risk of my child catching the disease, 2, what was the risk of serious complications from the disease if it was caught, 3, how much risk #1 hinges on high (ie, my) take up of the vaccine, 4, what the risk is of damage from the vaccine.

Now, I realise that it's totally impossible to quantify that and compare numbers on for example a percentage or odds-based basis. And the fear is that parents will be either too emotional, too stupid, too selfish to make the right choice (with point 3 being a particular sticking point) - but that was the kind of area of discussion I wanted to have. I found it incredibly frustrating to be told that the risks from the disease were rare but terrible, to be hearing from the other side that the risks of the vaccines were really rare but really terrible and not being able to quantify either. It felt at one point like an entirely equal risk both ways. I'm not sure that's the case, and I lean towards thinking that the vaccine is a lower risk option because surely they wouldn't do it if it wasn't, but I don't really know, I mean literally have no idea on scale and that makes me feel quite uneasy if I think about it too much.

It feels a bit like choosing between two hypothetical car seats: One which protects against more deadly crashes but doesn't protect well against more common minor crashes, and one which protects against the most common kinds of crashes, but isn't good at protecting against extreme/deadly crashes. But instead of parents being able to see that information and choose, somebody has decided that one is better than the other and that that's the only option. It's not a perfect analogy of course but that's how it felt to me at the time - that I wasn't being allowed to see which was best. If it's so clear cut and obvious, why isn't the information publically available? It's patronising for it not to be! So it leads me to think it's not that clear cut. But maybe it is? See, I just end up going around in circles with it.

Haven't RTWT (haven't the time) but I did spot this:
I am in my sixties and all my generation had measles, mumps, rubella, etc. without my ever coming across anyone who suffered adverse effects.
Measles: nearly killed me (encephalitis)
Mumps: my best mate's brother is deaf in one ear; he caught it off her, and she still feels guilty even though she knows that's not rational
Rubella: elderly couple up the road have an adult child who needs 24-hour care as his mother had rubella when pregnant

Oh, and the others:
Smallpox: my cousin caught this (yes, really, she's much older than me and was living in Asia) and was left horribly scarred. she was very lucky not to die. Smallpox is no longer a health issue anywhere - thanks to vaccination.
Polio: I saw a lot people who'd had polio when I was a child overseas. This on its own convinced me that I would give my own DC every vaccination going (unless adverse reactions indicated otherwise).
TB: people used to die of this all the time. Youngish people, mothers of small children (including one of my own forebears). I had the chance to get my DC vaccinated against this nasty too, and I took it.

One of my DC had a bad reaction to her first DWT vaccination, so we held off the whooping cough element until she was a year old. Luckily we were able to rely on herd immunity during that time.

There are toxic substances in vaccines - aluminum in some. We do find them and consume them from other places in life most days. We just don't inject them directly into the blood stream of small children who's blood brain barrier isn't fully intact on most days.

SOME children cannot get rid of the toxins, fortunately most can - hence not every vaccinated child is damaged by them.

Oh, and a PS for measles:
It left DH's grandfather blind in one eye.

Dinosaurtrain
Look at my link above about the safety of aluminium in vaccines. If you google keith and aluminium then you will see there is research on how the body clears aluminium from the body after injection.

Vaccination is not with risk, that is why there is a compensation scheme set up for those damaged by vaccination. At the moment the risk from the vaccination is tiny, but because the vast majority of us vaccinate our children, the chances of getting most of these diseases is tiny due to herd immunity so some parents start wondering why it is worth it. Good hygiene, probiotics etc. are not going to stop you getting diptheria, polio, or measles. But the problem is that when people do their research which is often from dodgy websites and don't get their children vaccinated then the herd immunity will start to fall and then the risk of getting these diseases will increase.

Some children can not genuinely be vaccinated due to reactions and allegies and they rely on the rest of us to be vaccinated. Most of the "bad science" surrounding vaccinations is because people do not understand how our immune system works and because we don't understand how deadly these diseases are as most of is are lucky enough to not have had first hand experience of them.

See, I heard from the anti-vax crowd that Whopping Cough is only dangerous to babies under a year old, so it doesn't make sense to give that one at all if delaying them.

From a five second google I find the first part of this to be true, but the second part is not - there is benefit to older people being vaccinated because it helps provide herd immunity to younger babies.

Polio: I saw a lot people who'd had polio when I was a child overseas

All credit to the polio vaccine for ridding us of the fear of this disease, but actually the only two people I know who have had polio after the 1950s epidemic, got it from the vaccine.

And no, I am not denying possible consequences of measles, mumps, rubella, etc. I am saying that I did not know anyone who suffered them, which is quite a different thing.

As parents we are the ultimate filter for our children's health and so the information should be made readily available to us so that we can each choose. And it is a very hard decision to make.

I don't agree with just blindly following any doctor's instructions, especially now that we have the means to double-check everything. I know too many people who have been seriously injured by medical error.

The ones I was in no doubt at all about were Diptheria, Tetanus and Polio. Whooping cough (Pertussis) was in with those so couldn't decline separately. TB wasn't offered where we lived. MMR seemed mild as considered "childhood diseases" similar to chicken pox, but perhaps as you say that's a fallacy - perhaps people were more blase about it because it was inevitable and unpreventable, rather than them actually being mild compared to what we experience today. Meningitis I wasn't sure because it was the rarer form which was vaccinated against. DS did have all offered but later than he would have done if I hadn't wavered.

Chicken pox must be on the decline, I reckon - DS hasn't had it and he's six. I thought he would have had it by now. MIL thinks DH isn't immune because he's had it twice.

Another bad science thing I heard - herd immunity doesn't work in the way we think because if you come into contact with a disease but are immune to it you still carry it. That's total bollocks I can obviously see now (the whole symptoms of a disease, especially respiratory tract being how it spreads thing) but I thought it was true then. :(

You can't catch Polio from the Polio vaccine any more Coyo because they don't use the live vaccination any more.

Oh fgs I have no idea how much aluminium is in this or that, I simply pointed out that ingesting it in the way the body usually filters out toxins eg - mouth, nose, skin etc is rather different to injecting something!!!

I also pointed out that most children can detox from it fine... But some do not.

Bertiebotts its sbcaey how misinformed they ae
When they bought in the whooping cough vaccine, the death rate in those under a year went down from just over 7000 deaths in 1938 - 1940 of which over 2500 were too young to be vaccinated to less than 100 in a decade. 1000s a year were saved in the USA by vacvination and herd immunity

I am pro vaccination but I believe in the right to make as informed a decision as possible without immediate condemnation. It is known that some children do have severe reactions/damage following vaccination. I also believe that our schedule in this country is perhaps more about payments than science, and is a very intense schedule very early on indeed. However, overall vaccination is a very good thing with a sound immunological basis, but I would certainly be wary of making sweeping statements about people who do not vaccinate. Many of them will have researched non-quacktastic sites, will have had sleepless nights worrying about their decision and will have taken the decision very seriously indeed acknowledging the respective risks. Some may have a family history of concern or a suspected disorder that may increase susceptibility to potential S/Es.

We already know people are damaged by aluminum - think Alzheimer's etc, it's been in the news fairly recently that there's links.

It's unavoidable, but not exactly a vitamin you want to take plenty of.

And I did mention upthread knowing someone whose child is damaged - they have aluminum poisoning, amongst other things.

The well researched Dr I use for our jabs now certainly has never denied that aluminum in jabs may be a source of poisoning for some vaccine damaged kids. We've had quite a few discussions on it.

That makes me go woah, wait, hang on a second! I wanted to know 1, what was the risk of my child catching the disease, 2, what was the risk of serious complications from the disease if it was caught, 3, how much risk #1 hinges on high (ie, my) take up of the vaccine, 4, what the risk is of damage from the vaccine.

The reason vaccines work is because most people get them. Which means that people are no longer carriers of the disease even if they are exposed to it. The reason it works is because of herd immunization. So if most are vaccinated, then it also protects the children that aren't. If the number of vaccinated children starts to drop, those diseases could very well resurface. As more people decide that vaccinations aren't for them, the more their luck is closer to running out.

So if you, a singular person did not vaccinate your child in the current pro-vaccination climate, then yes, it is possible they would not get any of those diseases because there aren't many carriers anymore. But as the trend continues for parents to not vaccinate their children, the more of a risk it becomes, including for the ones with immunodeficiencies who have no choice in the matter. That's why the only children that should be exempt from vaccines are the ones that have a medical reason or family history of having a bad reaction.

There is a group of rich people who have not vaccinated their children over in California, who studies have healthier kids than non-vaccinated ones because they have the luxury of being able to isolate their children, feed them organic healthy food, and access to some of the best health care. Not everyone has that luxury.

In a middle class income where you are interacting with children from all walks of life (because you're not in a gated community), you need vaccines to protect your child's health. The studies done just aren't applicable to the lay man.

In most states here in the US they bar unvaccinated children from public schools unless they have a doctor's note saying it will harm the child or sometimes religious objections will be accepted on a case by case basis.

So:

1. The risk of your child catching the disease is dependent on other children being vaccinated.
2. If you think your child can handle a full on disease if they catch it, why would you have a problem with part of a dead one in a vaccine? Moreover more doctors today do not have experience with these diseases because they've all but been eliminated, so you wouldn't be getting quality and knowledgeable care for it.
3. The risk of not catching a disease is once again is dependent on other children being vaccinated.
4. The risk of getting damaged from a vaccine is so rare, they have a separate fund set aside for it because it shouldn't even happen. You'd have more luck winning the powerball.

This is what is so bloody annoying... People have to attack or nitpick to prove themselves right and that anyone with concerns is therefore an idiot.

You know exactly what I mean. As I have said it.

I don't know the quantity off the top of my head in vaccines vs breast milk. I do know that I don't ingest breast milk and it is filtered through the digestive system eliminating toxins. There's the difference.

As a vaccinater its this kind of nit picking that makes me understand why people think some are on an agenda, as they deliberately poo poo valid concerns

Hep B indeed can survive on surfaces for prolonged periods. Any mother who is HBV positive in pregnancy = child must be vaccinated asap, indeed it is within this early window that it must occur as there is an extremely high rate of mother to child transmission and those who are infected within the first year of life have 90-95% likelihood of becoming chronically infected for life, greatly reducing quality and quantity of life for them later on. In households with hep B also or even relatives with it etc, this infection risk remains in early childhood.

I don't know the quantity off the top of my head in vaccines vs breast milk. I do know that I don't ingest breast milk and it is filtered through the digestive system eliminating toxins. There's the difference.

You don't ingest vaccines either.

Also, oral or injection, it still gets into your bloodstream. Your digestive system doesn't filter toxins, your liver does, and to do that a toxin first has to get into your bloodstream. How do you think alcohol works?

An injection just puts it into your bloodstream quicker.

As a vaccinater its this kind of nit picking that makes me understand why people think some are on an agenda, as they deliberately poo poo valid concerns

Except, you don't have any valid concerns. You're talking about traces of chemicals that are in everyday foods and drinking water.

Well I think il just bow out here rather than waste my time arguing with you

Of course I have no valid concerns when I personally know a vaccine injured child with aluminum poisoning. None at all.

And whilst I made a spelling mistake I think most people would have seen I meant to write "inject"

Anyways. Leaving thread now as is pointless and can't see it serving to encourage any nervous parent to vaccinate