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?

I don’t know what you mean by “corporate press and media” (the Daily Mail? WebMD? NHS online info?) but no medical or health professional ever pretends there are no rare serious side effects to or no side effects at all. The vast majority of side effects are minor, and are well known. When you take a child for vaccination, just as when you yourself have one, you are given that information and a vaccine information sheet with potential risks and side facts listed.

You can find out what vaccination you are being offered beforehand, and research the product leaflets and side effects online. There are many websites and media available which will inform you of the statistical risks vs benefits and rates of side effects per million. If you make an appointment with your vaccine nurse or GP beforehand to discuss the vaccines and have them explained to you, they will be happy to do it, most particularly for babies and children.

The problem here is not “corporate media” or anything of the sort. It is poor scientific and mathematical literacy. The vast majority of people who refuse vaccines simply do not either read the information available, or know how to understand it; nor do they ask a medical professional to explain it (which they may not be able to understand anyway).

There are many vaccines for which the benefits vs risks are more evenly balanced (flu vaccination, different types of COVID vaccination, and so on). There are others, like many of the childhood vaccinations, where the mathematics is stark and where the risks of serious complications per million are statistically much lower than the risks of serious complications of the disease. Nobody pretends the risk of vaccination is zero; but if it is (for example) ten or twenty times less than comparable risks of the disease, then vaccination is a no-brainer.

This balance of risks, population-wide, was much better understood in the past, when the memory of those diseases was fresh. I had severe whooping cough at three, from which I nearly died; and measles very badly at five, which doctors were worried would damage my eyesight (thankfully it didn’t). This was only just a couple of years before the MMR and pertussis vaccinations became available in the early 1980s. It was something routinely understood then that there were side-effects and risks of serious vaccine injury, but that these were smaller than the risks of the diseases themselves. This is made very clear in every vaccine information and leaflet, so if you think it isn’t, then you haven’t been reading or understanding the information. (Do you read the leaflets and inform yourself about other medications you may need to take?)

We are still finding out things about these diseases. It’s only recently been understood, for example, that measles can wipe out the immune system’s natural antibodies to prior infections for up to two years afterwards. In that case, not vaccinating against measles can have an impact on even a healthy immune system, with ramifications for even a robust child — making them more likely, not less, to contract other serious childhood diseases. (This doesn’t, of course, happen with vaccination.) People considering vaccination now tend to think about each disease in isolation. But a world without herd immunity was not a world in which you were weighing up the likelihood of getting complications from just one childhood disease — you were likely to get several; and they could have a compounding effect. People who experienced their children getting disease after disease during childhood — measles and rubella and mumps and chickenpox and whooping cough — were well aware that once you multiply all those diseases the risk of poor health, or some kind of damage or disability as a result, was not negligible. But even if you give your child every vaccine offered the risk of serious injury still remains a small and stable one.

Wow! That's interesting. I have a friend in her forties who has type II diabetes. She was put on Mounjaro when it first became available for diabetics, and subsequently had to have a cholecystectomy. Prior to this, she had no history of gallstones. I said right from the start that I think her problems were caused by the Mounjaro, but her diabetic nurse still insists she keeps taking it.

But even when Wakefield’s work was first published, it was always obvious to anyone who had even done so much as a science A-level, that it was a preliminary piece based on a tiny sample size, with plenty of methodological problems, and as such highly likely to not replicate.

The work was discussed in the media and scientific media in depth at the time and thought extremely likely not to be true because of its limitations, even when it wasn’t known that he had falsified some data. It was also contradicted at the time by lots of other research. I did a case study for an A-level biology class on this at the time, and the evidence against Wakefield’s paper was overwhelming even then. There were no “eminent scientists” that accepted his work; rather the reverse: there was great consternation in the medical community at the time that the broadcast media like the BBC, This Morning etc. was effectively suggesting that it was much more reputable than it actually was, by giving the impression that the scientific community were equally divided o the issue, as opposed to the real situation, which was that Wakefield’s work was thought to be invalid by about 99% of people in the field.

You didn’t even have to have access to medical research to know this — there were plenty of scientific magazines for the educated layperson at the time (like New Scientist), and broadsheet media like the FT which provided detailed analyses of his work. Since the millennium it’s been more and more evident for 25 years that Wakefield’s piece was wrong.

There are plenty of medical papers and conjectural case-studies and pieces of scientific research (even published in the Lancet!), which don’t end up replicating. That’s just a basic aspect of scientific research.

But you do understand of course that the chances of contracting measles weren’t low at all before vaccination?

Your argument relies entirely on the idea that herd immunity already exists! You’re starting from a false premise by assuming the chances of contracting measles are the same in a largely vaccinated population; and a non-vaccinated population.

Before vaccination, the reason that these diseases were known as routine childhood illnesses was because a very large percentage of the population got them — and not just one, but most of them — which made the numbers of children experiencing serious side effects very high. Much, much greater numbers than the small risk of vaccine injury in a herd immunity population. Measles routinely caused blindness, deafness, encephalitis with all sorts of results like learning and cognitive disabilities afterwards. (You would not have seen those children afterwards in your school or community, because physically or cognitively disabled children did not generally remain in mainstream education before the 1990s — they ended up at home or in special schools.)

The conjecture that the effects of measles would be less on a modern population because of better nutrition remains just an untested conjecture of yours, and one with plenty of suggestive factors against it, too. Measles is incredibly contagious — it can be caught by just being in a room where someone else with the virus has been in there beforehand for 10-15 minutes. In pre-vaccinated generations physical mobility was much less and children were less often in crowded, big, hot social and transport spaces: now one person with measles on a plane, train, supermarket, cafe or restaurant could potentially infect a much greater number of children than before (and faster). Ditto our use of touchscreens and propensity to spend more time in heated rooms. We also have many more children in the population who have been premature, or who live with health conditions that were less survivable 50 or 70 years ago.

The truth is, we have no idea if improved nutrition would change the rates of serious side effects of these diseases in the present day. There could even be confounding factors which could produce the reverse — and we would have no idea at all unless we had a totally non-vaccination cohort; and nobody sensible would want to go back to that just to see what would happen for the lolz.

To return to your initial point: if we didn’t have vaccination the chance of your child contacting measles would not be low, but high. It’s only low if you are in the small percentage of non-vaccinators who are relying on everyone else’s herd immunity from vaccination. If everyone did as you suggest, the risks vs benefits calculation would change. The whole mechanism of vaccination rests on the paradox that you can’t have both the statistical benefits of herd immunity, and also a large proportion of the population not vaccinate.

The key thing about vaccination is that it offers both an individual benefit but also a wider social one that helps others in lots of ways. Now, generally, the threshold for herd immunity is slightly lower than the entire population, so there is room for those for whom vaccination would be dangerous to remain unvaccinated, but still benefit from everyone else’s vaccination. But the whole idea of this is reserved for the small number who can’t for whatever reason have the vaccine (which no medical professional has ever denied exist).

By relying on everyone else’s herd immunity you are effectively “stealing” that statistical margin from those who are not able to have the vaccine at all. (And it only even works for you if not too many other people are doing it too.)

There was no access at all to antibiotics between 1900 and 1925, seeing as they were discovered in 1928, but not synthesised until the 1940s, and only available to the general public after WWII.

Even if they were available, they might have helped with scarlet fever (caused by a bacterium — though an effective vaccine was actually developed for scarlet fever before antibiotics were successfully used against it). But antibiotics would not have been much use against measles, chickenpox, rubella, influenza, whooping cough or mumps, all caused by viruses.

Those viruses did (and still do) kill, and cause physical and cognitive disabilities and deformities just from the damage the virus itself does to the brain, eyes, hearing, and so on. These effects might be worsened by poverty, but they were not limited to the poor, and you couldn’t protect against them by being rich and well fed.

Spot on.

Anti-vaxxers, eh? At best culpably ignorant, at worst cynical riders on the coattails of those who have their children vaccinated.

Yet even on this thread we have posters shocked that the ‘greater good’ is truly a part of the reason to vaccinate. I’ve found it eye opening to have to say that, yes, that is a valid part of the reason I vaccinate and to be questioned about my sincerity. And I don’t think of myself as even a particularly good person!

But your children are at risk of developing shingles later, as a result of having had chicken pox rather than the vaccine.

I remember during this time that celebrity had a lot to do with it too - I was living in New York at the time and Jenny McCarthy was all over Oprah and the press being called a mommy ‘warrior’ for talking about the supposed autism connection. Social media has put this effect on steroids.

Mumsnet 4 years ago was so pro covid vaccine that it was unbearable.
It’s good to see it’s being discussed so freely now.
My son had got intersusseption from his rotavirus vaccine and he was very unwell. Thankfully better now and no visible signs of injury.
And yes I was told by multiple drs at the time ( 2012) that it was the cause.

I agree with this. There are a few comments creeping in the thread about ‘nourishment’, ‘diet’ and ‘lifestyle’. That’s very similar to the Covid threads a few years ago. The ableism and ageism was horrific.

That’s not how I remember it.

I’m sorry that happened to your son, that must have been terrifying. I think it’s well known that vaccines can have side effects, they hand out a leaflet when you have them. It doesn’t make it less upsetting to be in the small
percentage that do, however.

I remember vociferous arguments on both sides, back then.

I appreciate that and I am so sorry, living with these things sounds horrendous.

My problem is not that medication-induced injury or even vaccine injury exists as I understand it does. And I also know that medical professionals DO cause harm due to ignorance - this is one of the exact cracks that the medical profession urgently needs to fix IMO in order to prevent people legitimately losing trust and turning to alternative sources.

My problem is the exploitation of some of these cases (but a lot more cases which are only dubiously linked to vaccines) in persuit of an agenda to discredit medicine, science, and vaccination in order to drive business towards unproven alternative health. This makes certain people a lot of money. That's not what you're doing and it's shit that you end up caught up in the discredition of that. Apologies because that wasn't my intention.

I am all for proper research supporting alternative health and the bringing of more holistic methods and more empathy and time into mainstream medicine. And all medications need proper accountability and safety and a good understanding/communication of the risk/benefit analysis.

This is based on an unreviewed preprint, and the article is from a website with a clear editorial bias. The research may or may not be true, but as of yet it's totally unverified by credible, qualified peers.

Statistically the risk of vaccine injury, I believe, is very low, but I don't think there is honesty around the actual prevalence.

I stated upthread that I realise the risk of vaccine injury is lower than the risk of complication from the disease.

But the risk of complication from the disease is still very low and decreases with age for most of them, and the risk of vaccine injury is zero.

So I don't want to improve an already low chance by a small amount to increase a chance that is currently zero.

My child's risk of complications from disease stays the same no matter how many others vaccinate.

You're confusing the risk of serious complications with the risk of catching it.

I think you're either skimreading or not comprehending what is being said?

But this only works for you if everyone else vaccinates. So it’s a fundamentally selfish position that relies upon others not doing the she.

Once herd immunity is lost, then the risk balance is very different, and the risk of serious complications from the disease becomes much much greater again than any risk of vaccine injury. That’s why people vaccinated their children in the first place.

Current US statistics suggest that out of around 300 per year getting measles, between around 4 in 10 need to be hospitalised. This doesn’t sound like a risk you would want to take if it was aggregated to a population level. Pre-vaccination, it was estimated that measles was so infectious that if one person with measles was in a room with ten other people, nine out of those ten would contract measles. In cohorts born pre-1960 they estimate that nearly every child in the population had measles.

Herd immunity is usually reached at around 94/95% of the population for measles. But you are essentially relying on everyone else being sensible so you can piggyback on them.

Did you ever find out whether it was a bacteria that we have vaccines for?

This is totally wrong and if you think that’s the case, you don’t understand statistics or risk.

Look at my post above. Your child’s risk of complications from a disease, when everyone catches it, are much higher than if only a tiny number catch it. In the second case the risk of catching it at all is so small precisely because of vaccination. If every child in the population got measles, your child would be far more likely to suffer a serious complication of the disease — including things like hearing loss or blindness. As it stands, you are relying on herd immunity to decrease the risk of your child catching it in the first place.

The risk of, say, 4 in a hundred suffering serious complications when only a couple of hundred catch it in a year, is not the same as the risk of 4 in a hundred suffering serious complications when every child in a population catches it.

You can find a huge amount of information about prevalence and numbers here:

www.gov.uk/government/collections/measles-guidance-data-and-analysis

ukhsa-dashboard.data.gov.uk/vaccine-preventable-diseases/measles

Ask yourself: assuming you don’t actually think that there is some mass conspiracy to inject the population with alien nanoparticles or suchlike, why on earth would governments go to the trouble of expensive vaccination programmes and disease elimination strategies if these did not work or could be prevented by nutrition? It’s because vaccination is one of the huge success stories of modern medicine and has prevented huge amounts of suffering and death. Not because everyone is conspiring to hoodwink you.

They're often sick with every bug going where mine are not.
I wonder whether artificially stimulating the immune system is a good idea overall or not.

You're right. It's a short sighted and selfish position.

Once my children are adults they will have come into contact with most of the things we have vaccines for, and have gained immunity or resilience.

I care about my children and want them optimally healthy.

I think hygiene, clean water, good nutrition, all came about as vaccines did. I don't think those who profit from vaccination would be honest about just how much of the heavy lifting this did.

Sanitation and nutrition cannot stop us contracting airborne diseases, but it still improves the chances of severe complications, which is the thing I'm worried about.

Collectively, our baseline health is stronger since vaccines were invented and I wonder how much damage the same diseases would do today compared to before vaccination, before sanitation and widespread good nutrition.

And I don't think that if it were the case that we could end vaccination programmes it wouldn't be that the pharmaceutical companies went 'oh cool, we can stop making these now, pass that down immediately'

I think instead they would say 'we don't want to lose this revenue, let's keep pushing this product forever'

Same as if it was found that vaccines were causing any kind injury I don't think pharmaceutical companies would champion that research. I think instead they would shut it down, vilify its proponents, and bury research in order to not damage the reputation of their product.

I would like to as anyone willing to answer.

Can you lay out what you believe would happen if it were found that vaccines caused harm?

So a professional lays out to their superior how they believe vaccines cause harm.

What happens next?

Does it end in vaccines being pulled, or with that person vilified and their research buried?

Even if you won't put an answer here, think about it for a second.

Thanks for that. You're right I don't fully understand and am operating from fear. I will absolutely read what you have put here. Though my children are mostly too old for any catch up schedules anyway. I don't talk about this online usually as I wouldn't want to influence anyone.

To your last point though, vaccines do bring revenue for large pharmaceutical companies, and people who are in government often have financial ties to those companies. So I don't believe it's an altruistic top down initiative. I think, like everything that is done by billionaires, it's to make profit. And yes, I do believe that those in power conspire frequently, to that very end, and I don't believe that vaccinations are exempt from this.

My child is never going to be at risk of a vaccine injury. My children is at very minimal risk from complications from measles. By the time she is 10 she'll be at even lower risk from things like meningitis.

Before meningitis vaccinations (very recently available, eg only after 2000) there were big peaks of meningitis in the teens and twenties — there are lots of different strains of meningitis that cause infection peaks much later than 10.

You are clearly too young to remember the meningitis information campaigns of the 1990s. One of the first cohorts to be vaccinated against meningitis were university students. I was allowed to have the new Men B / Men C vaccinations in my twenties in the early 2000s precisely because I taught university students.

The risk of meningitis is far lower today thanks to the Men B and Men ACWY vaccines. But there are still strains that have no vaccine.

I think the reason there’s not as much open discussion is because it would put people off and it is a tiny minority who have side effects to speak of. Most people accept the risk because it’s so minuscule and it’s outweighed by the benefits. There’s more risk of being in a car crash, we don’t go into any of those statistics when buying a car, or getting into one.