To ask you to help me argue with an anti-vaxxer on fb

[GoesDownLikeACupOfColdSick]

I know, I know. But it's Saturday night, DP is out and I am just home whilst our (fully vaccinated!) DD is asleep.

What do I say to someone who is convinced that we should all do our own research, that vaccines are only about big pharma making big bucks, and that the govt hushes up vaccine damage??

If his argument is that Big Pharma just want to make money from vaccines, surely you could point out that actually a bunch of sick people (un-vaccinated) would make them more money?
But agree with PP, step away from the keyboard!

I'm sorry about your brother knackeredinyorkshire, but vaccines have there risks too. I had measles and mumps in my cdied or ended up with a disability through any of them, but I do not deny that that happens. Likewise, apart from two people who got polio from the polio vaccine, I have never personally met anyone who has been damaged by a vaccine, but that also happens. That is why there is a government scheme to pay for vaccine damage. That's why the inserts in the packages refer to adverse reactions, some of which are serious.

So maybe more than being medically trained, as parents we would need to be trained actuaries to be able to weigh the conflicting risks.

Look, unless you really really like the back and forth of debating and winding them up while exhaustively searching and providing links and sources to back up your arguments that they counter with exhaustively searched links and sources to bolster theirs, it's an exercise in futility and rage-inducing frustration to argue with people like this. I just don't have the patience to try and educate people who refuse to be educated.

Guns/creationism/Trump/vaccines/abortions/mooncups/sugar/marmite - all topics I don't get drawn into with extremist anti my particular stancers. I won't change their minds and they won't change mine. What's the point?

I went to visit a friend recently who blames vaccines for causing her sons autism (self diagnosed BTW) and she was telling me how she had all but cured his autism and aggression with a new diet she had found...two minutes later she had to take her son home as he was punching and kicking a little girl. The irony was lost on her...

Yes, my friend - whose kids are not autistic - swears that diet can "cure" it.

Sure if a person has an intolerance then changing diet might make them feel better and therefore behave differently. But that's a totally different thing to changing the inherent makeup of someone's brain, ffs!

Don't waste your time. I've got one of these.

My argument is "couldn't give a fuck if the pharma is making money"

To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

It seems to have become a bit of a modern mantra that you shouldn't argue with people on the internet. I really disagree. Now more than ever people are being bombarded with fake and partisan information. If you really know something about something it's your duty to tell people if they are completely mistaken, especially if that ignorance is harmful.

If arguing with people on the internet is taking up a lot of your time and making you stressed and angry then of course stop. However, it's really not true that sharing facts is useless. All changes for the better began with persuading people to see things differently. People can, and do, respond to new information which challenges their beliefs.

Even if you only make one person in a thousand reexamine an attitude then it's worth it!

All changes for the better began with persuading people to see things differently

And being persuaded too.

Unfortunately most people discuss things to prove that they are right, not out of an interest in hearing the other person's point of view.

It's odd to think that educating yourself never involves taking the advice of the WHO, HSE, NHS, CDC ect into account.

I'm stealing this comment for future use. Well put dusty.

the answer will be: "they're all in on it".

My friend is convinced that the CDC is out to make money...!.... This is why I took the advice here early doors and bowed out after 2 comments.

I tend to block people that dim. Sure there are risks, but they are minimal compared to A) the risk of getting the illness and B) the risk of side effects from those illnesses. In terms of sheer odds, you're better off being vaxxed unless your family has specific indicators to the contrary.

People who spout off about Big Pharma etc tend to read a lot of Mercola, Natural News and David Avocado Wolfe. No thanks.

CDA That's a worthy sentiment when directed at those open to education and reasoning, ie people who are conflicted in their thinking and have asked for opposing arguments and actually may be swayed by a reliable source. In cases such as the OP describes however, you can type until your keyboard wears out and you will not convince them the zombies are not coming, the vaccination program is not a cover for stealth-microchipping the populace and that the Queen and all other heads of state aren't actually lizard people.

whats wrong with looking at both sides of the picture. They are not 100% safe and blindly following what others do without question is stupid.

No they are not 100% safe, you have to weigh up the risks. Most research shows the risks are less from being vaccinated than not.

Most research shows the risks are less from being vaccinated than not

Have you any sources for this claim?

I vaccinated my dd some thirty odd years ago and no problems, but when my dgd was going to be born I started trying to find information comparing the risks of each vaccine compared to the risks of the diseases they are designed to fight and have not found any information of that nature.

Atenco - what's your background? Do you have access to the actual scientific data used by the CDC, NHS etc? Because if not( you're just googling, sorry!

I see someone's beaten me to the pig wrestling comment. But I do like the idea of deliberately feeding him new nuttiness like chem trails. May I suggest you add dihydrogen monoxide? One of the most seriously scary environmental hazards around, responsible for many many deaths every year, and everywhere around us, and no-one is talking about it.

art no nothing more than doctor's leaflets. I work on the idea that the NHS, WHO, etc are not going to recommend a nationwide vac programme if it's not in the public good. What would be the point?

atenco that info is easy to find.
iom adverse affects published by the iom
looks at the disease and adverse affects by vaccines.
if you look at science blogs like leftbrain rightbrain or respectful influence which although provaccine they will always link to the proper evidence.

Small pox, just that, and repeat. Either he'll think or will come out as completely bat shit and say small pox was a hoax.

Since you ask, Atenco (I picked diptheria because i happened to remember 2 of my grandmother's 7 siblings died in a diptheria epidemic - but I'm sure it would be easy to find similar information for other diseases for which we routinely vaccinate).

Taken from a pdf produced by the Centre for Disease Control (US federal department, AFAIK).

"Death
The overall case-fatality rate for diphtheria is 5%–10%, with
higher death rates (up to 20%) among persons younger than
5 and older than 40 years of age. The case-fatality rate for
diphtheria has changed very little during the last 50 years."

In contrast, the complication rate for the vaccine is given as CDC website again:

"Moderate Problems (Uncommon)

Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
High fever, over 105°F (about 1 child out of 16,000)

Severe Problems (Very Rare)

Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:
    Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
    Permanent brain damage."

So, bit of a no-brainer really. Overall death rate in a diptheria epidemic 5 to 10% (higher in small children), rate of moderate complications 1 in 14,000 (seizures), rate of severe complications less than 1 in a million.

Thing is, I'm sure your average anti-vaxxer would simply start squawking about a government cover-up at this point and claiming the CDC statistics were because they were hand-in-glove with big pharma.

That is interesting bruffin, but not what I was asking about.

For example, if there are 300 seriously injured and/or dead children a year from a vaccine, but before the vaccine came along there were 4000 children seriously injured and/or dead children a year from that same disease. The decision would be quite clear cut. But I just don't see anywhere where these statistics are given side by side.

As for the argument about the smallpox vaccine, one vaccine that has proved effective is not a get-out-of-jail-free for every other vaccine on the market. If it were, there would be no need for clinical trials, would there?

I should add that back in the mists of pre-history I had quite a bad allergic reaction to the smallpox vaccination. Were my parents wrong to give it to me? Hell no, smallpox was endemic back then, and the most severe form (variolis) had a mortality rate of 1 in 3.

We live such cushioned lives thanks to vaccinations that people have simply forgotten how bad these diseases were.