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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.

This is social media

I agree with you but some of the answers I’m seeing here also seem to be saying they’re not worried about the diseases coming back because they think that the risk of bad side effects from actually getting them are still low. This does still blow my mind along with the lack of concern for others.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-education-group-of-all-phds/

Interesting study from Carnegie Mellon on vaccine hesitancy by education. Follows a U shaped distribution, and finds those educated to PHD level to be the most likely to be vaccine resistant, or hesitant. The next most likely group as those with the lowest education levels, but this group is more easily persuaded, the PHDs are least likely to change their mind.

I wonder why... genuinely. This is fascinating.

Another child of the 60s here. I feel lucky to have survived measles, mumps and whooping cough without any lasting damage. I've known two work colleagues permanently disabled by polio (I used to help one of them out of the building and give her a lift home).

I'm so grateful that these horrible illnesses no longer pose such a threat thanks to advances in preventive medicine. It bothers me that people take this safety for granted and are prepared to compromise it for everyone else as a result of that complacency.

All vaccinations must list potential side effects, both rare and common. Everyone is different and it's inevitable that a tiny proportion of people will suffer adverse effects. But the risk of getting killed crossing a road is much higher.

Sincerest sympathies to anyone who has suffered a devastating impact on their health following a vaccine. You were really unlucky, like getting on a plane doomed to crash, but healthcare providers should not dismiss you as delusional just because it's so rare.

Because of vaccines we now see more vaccines injury than long term side effects and deaths from the disease it prevents, therefore peoples perceptions of risk get skewed.

My mother remembers deaths from polio, diphtheria and measles, I work with people who have disabilities from the same diseases. I also work with vaccine injured individuals but I've worked with 3 or 4 times more disease injured people than vaccine injured individuals. But the general adult of vaccine having aged children don't see these things, so it's really easy to forget the devastating consequences of not having vaccines.

I don't think that is what people are saying. What is being said is the risk of severe complications is greatly reduced in well-nourished people who are not living in over crowded situations.

I had measles in the early 70's as did most of the neighbouring kids. None of us had long term effects. In my parents' generation, kids were much more likely to have long term effects or die. This can, at least in part, be attributed to improved nutrition and living conditions.

@user098786533 Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts. Again, I don’t share them, but can see how you feel that having a 0% risk of vaccine injury is what motivates your decision making. What I don’t quite understand is your rational that a healthy diet and breast feeding to full term is going to prevent them from contracting deadly viruses? Like you, I exclusively breastfed my children, they have a very healthy diet, we have pets and spend lots of time outdoors - these are all things that I believe help their immune system (and perhaps also helped to spare us quite as many of the common nursery bugs) but I’m not under the illusion that this alone makes their defences strong enough to fight off TB, Polio, measles etc. Nor do I think that my anecdotal experience of 1 can stand up to the wealth of research and data that shows us that vaccines give us the greatest form of prevention.

I also note that you worry that you feel that it is unconscionable for you to actively give your children something that carries a risk, however small. I wonder, though, how you would feel if your children were suffering from something that you had been strongly encouraged by medical professionals, peers - almost everyone around you - to vaccinate against but had chosen to ignore that advice. How do you weight that one up, especially given that there is overwhelmingly more advice to vaccinate than to not?

I suppose I would be considered an anti vaxer? I had all my CH Vax apart from the whooping cough one as lots of kids were having issues at the time ( mid 80s) I had all of the illnesses mumps,measles, chicken pox and German measles( rubella) before I was 11 no lasting effects, That said all of my kids had all theirs even though my oldest has her mmr in the height of the controversy. My husband has had none due to an allergy ( healthiest person I know!) but he did have the oral polio when our kids did as it a live vaccine? I unfortunately did have 2 COVID vaccines which afterwards my periods were never the same and a friend died in his early 40s as a direct result 😞my daughters refused the COVID ones and my eldest who is expecting her 4th baby is refusing flu,COVID and rsv whilst pregnant, she is very concerned as they are supposed to be putting the chicken pox vax in with the mmr which she doesn't want her new baby to have ( various reasons) I completely agree with her and I know others that do won't this cause more vaccine hesitantancy? As in most people are happy to have their kids and themselves vaccinated against diseases they are aware are very dangerous but pushing others and labelling people as anti vaxers due to not wanting certain ones could cause more problems?

Just looking at the mother side of the optic, my DB is an ITU consultant and winter months they have their beds filled with pregnant ladies with Covid and flu - and not all mums and/or babies survive, they’re killers I’m afraid so it’s good to know both sides

This explanation is totally bonkers to me.

People are not willing to risk any potential vaccination side effects but are willing to risk disease side effects, varying from life long disability all the way up to death, based on the hope that it probably won’t be too bad because living standards have improved?

I fear my question remains unanswered..

It probably would.

And I really really wish that autism was caused by paracetamol, or some other really easy to stop using things. So that autism was no longer a thing. But alas it is not.

I wouldn’t personally consider you an anti—vaxxer if both you and your children have had the main childhood vaccines…

I did have the Covid vaccines myself but I can understand the hesitancy in automatically accepting something for which there is less historic data, especially if also pregnant.

I do think everyone is entitled to their opinion, but relying on others or be vaccinated and being wary of something that is clearly proven to offer prevention (and I’m thinking of those illnesses for which we have plenty of historic research and data here) is a view that I find hard to understand.

It may not be your logic but it is a valid viewpoint. The chances of contracting measles or similar is low, the chance of a long lasting side effect are significantly lower still.

There are potentially serious side effects to all drugs, including vaccines so it's a question of deciding which is the risk you're willing to take.

Your question has been answered. Just not to your satisfaction.

Fair enough my db is a scientist data analyst who studies MRNA I suppose you lean towards who you trust?

And Wakefield didn't claim everyone who had the MMR developed autism, just that it was a risk.

So people were actively choosing the risk of death over the risk of autism.

But the risk of contracting measles is only low as a result of vaccination? If we did not have herd immunity, the chances of contracting measles would be high, so I don’t understand your explanation?

Perhaps you are right that the answer is just not satisfying me. To me, it appears these diseases are shrugged off as no big deal because we have little to no visibility of them anymore. As I say, the trade off just doesn’t make sense to me but I guess it makes sense to others.

Most people would not even have considered death as a potential outcome from measles so were choosing the unlikely chance of their child contracting measles over the perceived higher risk of them developing autism.