Genuine question for anti-vaxxers

[Raisinmeup]

I see a lot online about anti-vaxxers and I’m trying to understand where they’re coming from, so this is a genuine question, not rage bait.

My understanding is that some parents choose not to vaccinate their children because they believe vaccines cause harmful side effects, or they just don’t trust the government and big pharma in general.

But what’s the alternative? If everyone stopped vaccinating, wouldn’t we start seeing diseases like polio coming back? That would mean more infant deaths and lifelong disabilities. It just doesn’t seem like a rational trade off?

From what I’ve seen, there seems to be a belief that immune systems can deal with these illnesses naturally, but I wonder if part of that belief comes from the fact that parents of today haven’t actually seen what a world without vaccines looks like. We’ve grown up in a time where infant death from preventable diseases is almost unheard of, so maybe it’s easy to forget how serious these infections really are.

And lastly, if you haven’t vaccinated your child and they then catch one of these illnesses, do you not end up turning to the same big pharma for the medicine or treatment anyway?

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 While I would not cite unpublished research in my own work, research does not have to be published to be research.

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.

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.

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 may have lit the touch paper here, but I still don’t feel like my question’s been answered.

As I said in my OP, I understand people fear adverse side effects from vaccination. What I still I don’t understand is why anyone worries about that risk but seems unconcerned about diseases returning and exposing everyone to far greater harm.

Calling these diseases low risk only works while we benefit from mass vaccination. If herd immunity disappears and outbreaks return, do we just wait until diseases are rampant before we circle back to vaccination again?

The vague suggestion given by some that complications from these diseases would still be unlikely is frightening. We are lucky not to have lived through illnesses like diphtheria. It feels privileged to benefit from herd immunity while downplaying diseases that historically killed infants.

So you wouldn’t cite your unpublished work?

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.

Of course not.

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.

Ahhh 😊

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.

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.

A lightbulb moment? Please share.

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.

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.

For argument’s sake, even if you are being selfish by refusing vaccination while still benefiting from herd immunity, my question is what happens when that herd immunity disappears? It’s unlikely we’ll ever find a solution with zero risk for anyone. Are you suggesting it’s more sensible to risk exposure to polio, even if it were widespread, than to be exposed to a vaccine?

I’m also not sure what you mean by the lack of data .. Are you implying that complications from these diseases don’t exist? or that they wouldn’t occur if the diseases returned?

To touch on an illness more prevalent in recent times than polio - would you allow your DC to have HPV vaccine or are you fearful of all vaccination? The HPV vax has already massively reduced HPV infections and cervical cancer. Yes, some people experience side effects, but would you rather risk your DC developing cancer rather than risk them experience a vaccination side effect?

I don’t mean to single you out but this thread has become huge!

😂😂

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

You don’t know what ahh means?