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?

That particular user isn't answering any of the legitimate questions put to her - she said she was concerned about some of the ingredients but won't say what those ingredients are. How is asking her to actually lay out her concerns 'sassy?'

So what made you reach the decision? The ingredients?

Worldwide millions died either with or from Covid. An incredibly small number unfortunately suffered vaccine injuries. My friend died from Covid (it triggered a massive heart attack) - unfortunately he didn’t get the chance to have the vaccine as he died a couple of weeks before the vaccine rollout.

The Covid vaccine lessens the symptoms and hopefully keeps you out of hospital. The latest variant seems to be particularly unpleasant although limited numbers of severe cases.

Chicken pox can be mild but very easily spread and can have horrible side effects.

Me - I’d rather a vaccine developed by virologists, experts in their field rather than risk a severe case of the virus

I am very pro vaccine.
I have a child with a chronic illness who has been on off label prescriptions and involved in drug trials for 20 years.
His life expectancy has tripled since he was born because of my pro pharma attitude.
I do think alot of people don't vaccinated because they can rely on the herd immunity created by those who do vaccinate.
I do think it is really selfish as I have had to make hard decisions weigh up real life risks to extend my child's life. It's just not fair.
During COVID I was very aware if my child got COVID and was severely ill he wouldn't be ventilated as the likelihood of him recovering would be slim so better to give a healthy fit person his spot.
That's my reality so I can't talk about vaccines in real life because anti-vaxers have the privilege of a choice I didn't have as a parent.
I just had to keep him alive by any means.

There is not much point trying to get your head around the logic of antivaxxers because much of it is not based on logic, it is based on fear. The majority of vaccine-hesitant parents, and many people re-sharing antivax info believe that what they are hearing is true, or find it plausible enough to worry about the safety/efficacy of vaccines, but the major proponents/original sources of these myths are not acting in good faith. They are knowingly spreading misinformation, usually with the goal of turning people away from mainstream medicine/science because they want to turn them towards alternative health treatments instead, or sometimes there is a political motivation as well as we are seeing in the US.

Essentially nobody likes taking their baby/toddler to get jabbed, because it hurts them - it's horrible. That's the case whether you fully support vaccination or not.

That means though that it's a particularly easy way to tip some people from "Ugh hate this but it's necessary" into "What if I didn't have to do it?" and then to "But what if this vaccine could REALLY hurt my child?"

Plus of course, you can't tell by looking at someone if they are immune to a disease or not. So it's not as difficult to seed the idea that maybe it's all just a con and it's not doing anything.

It wouldn't work nearly as well if it was something like antibiotics or casting a broken bone - you can see the effects of those medical procedures working, and most people would find it extremely difficult to deny their ill or injured child medical treatment which would make them better. (I know antibiotic refusal is also a thing - but tends to be a bit deeper down the rabbithole whereas vaccines are more of a gateway fear.)

General anxiety and other mental health issues involving anxiety, or mistrust in medicine/governments/authority in general (often due to multiple instances of being let down, unheard, or minimised by these groups) leaves people more vulnerable to the claims antivaxxers make. It's not about intelligence or wanting to be contrary. If you want to reduce the reach of antivaccine rhetoric, the most effective thing would be to look into why people lose trust in medicine or government and truly look into how to address those issues, not how to trick or persuade people into vaccinating - but actually how to include, serve, and listen to and reach all groups who currently don't feel that medicine/governments have their best interests at heart, as well as better funding for mental health care to help when people are suffering from anxiety-related conditions leaving them less vulnerable to predatory misinformation.

I'm afraid I can't find which exact one it is any more, but the most interesting thing I ever listened to was an interview with Lydia Greene, who did a U-Turn from being a prominent antivax activist to now speaking out on behalf of parents who are unsure about vaccinating and reassuring them about why vaccines are safe and pointing out the holes in antivax arguments. She is fairly easy to find online so you could listen to any podcast interview with her where she may tell part of the same story.

If you’re choosing not to vaccinate your children you’re contributing to the return of infectious diseases in this country and putting those who cannot be vaccinated at risk. End of.

See, this is the problem... people offer a legitimate example of why they might reject a particular vaccine... and they're immediately met with 'sassy' comments like this. How does this help anyone?

Regardless of what her concerns are, she's concerned. The End!

One factor in vaccine scepticism is, as pp have said, the information which government health authorities give about vaccine campaigns and public health in general.

The aim of health campaigns is to get a population-wide response, especially with something like vaccination, because the risk to public health lessens the closer you get to a critical mass uptake.

The persuasive publicity used - as we saw in the pandemic - aims to give individuals powerful reasons to do something for the common good regardless of the extent they benefit as individuals. If authorities get it wrong, they will suffer mistrust.

And it's the case that public health information, especially in a crisis, often has the corners knocked off, it's not a complete, nuanced discussion of every issue, or the ins-and-outs of every scientific opinion. It can't be, because too many people wouldn't pay attention to the campaign, recognise the core information, or be able to take action. It's a balancing act.

PP have listed lots of contributory factors to general mistrust, even before the pandemic, such as individualisation and a growing Western sense that democratic authorities are not on the side of ordinary people. In parallel, social media provides a thousand outlets for alternative, anti-authority information, including mistrust of scientific information.

And when trust on 'the science' of one subject is lowered, it affects other areas in which scientists and campaigners are trying to engage the public, such as with climate change, green taxes, lowering emissions etc.

Which is why it's such a shame that academics, politicians, communicators and medics have been loudly telling the public, with a straight face, that humans can change sex and that sex is on a 'complicated' spectrum and that children can be born into the wrong body, while bio-scientists carefully examined their fingernails.

In the area I live in, people have become generally sceptical about government information campaigns and are becoming more inclined to 'make their own minds up' about risks.

Sorry to hear about your deafness as a result of measles. You were very unfortunate. I assume that was late 60's/early 70's? I got the measles in the early 70's as did most of the neighbouring kids. None of us had long term effects. I think by them, while certainly not unheard of, long term damage was more unusual.

My ds got what was euphemistically referred to as mini measles from the MMR. He was dreadfully ill but the difference between that and measles was, apparently, there was no threat of any of the permanent impacts from actual measles.

Re beef - I live in Ireland so my dc got Irish beef but no way were they getting any beef that was in any way processed or could have potentially come from the UK. I think you were being very sensible with that.

Re the auto immune diseases - mine was also triggered by a very, very mild dose of a virus. If it can be triggered by a virus, it makes sense that it can also be triggered by a vaccine as both put a load on the immune system.

Basically, life is a series of risks and we just need to make the best decisions we can with the best information we can find. Unfortunately unbiased information can be hard to find.

Anti vaxxers should take a walk round some old Victorian churchyard, and see the number of graves where two,three, or even more children, from the same family, had all died within just a very few weeks, from some epidemic childhood disease.

I'm not anti-vax, but my partner is. I have 2 older children who had all their vaccines and a 7 year old who has had none at all. I've spoken to my GP surgery and they won't vaccinate without the consent of both of us as they are aware of his views. Either that or a court order. Without one or the other they won't do it until DC is considered gillick competent and can consent.

His reasons are mostly related to mistrust of big pharma and the fact that money drives everything. The COVID vaccine debacle has made things worse. We personally know 3 people who had significant side effects from the COVID jab but none of them have been openly accepted as being down to the vaccine, although all told 'off the record ' that it was the likely cause.

Until there is far more transparency and about the possible adverse effects and the financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies people like him are unlikely to change their minds.

I can totally see his points, but for me I would prefer to take the small risk of DC having the vaccines than them getting a VPD

An exception to this is the COVID jab which we all refused. I work in healthcare and know clinicians who also declined

I agree.

but to research you must of written a paper stating your evidence etc

can you show me your research on the vaccines? Meaning you must of written a paper. I’d like tor was your research.

I’m not sure (honestly, I’m not being a twat) that I’ve seen much of a legitimate example yet.

Unless of course you mean your research was googling stuff?

I do believe though most people who are anti vax don’t remember polio. Never remembered the iron lungs or knew someone who lived in one.

never knew someone who was amputated after polio or almost died from measles or small pox

No! Not Google. YouTube and TikTok. Otherwise you’re just wasting your time when you’re sat on the toilet.

exactly!!!!

I hate pee who say they’ve researched stuff

right. So to research you need to publish a paper with peer reviews and evidence then?

I had bacterial meningitis when I was 21

no immune problems or anything before. However there was an outbreak. Anyone can catch it.

Oh. Please don’t say you believed Andrew Wakefield?

They seem healthier and more resilient than their vaccinated peers, and that's the data I go on.

What is the ‘data’ you have on your children’s vaccinated peers ‘seeming’ less ‘healthy and resilient?’

That is a ridiculous statement. Of course you don't need to publish if you do research.

I'm an academic. I do research. Some of it is published, some is not. Reasons for not publishing might include: I didn't come to any interesting conclusions, I was doing the research to inform my teaching, I started in one direction and took a detour off on a more interesting direction so abandoned the initial research, I was just doing a bit of research out of personal interest.

None of my published research is related to immunology but I am certainly capable of doing research on the topic. I just wouldn't be doing primary research on the topic as that would be outside my skillset.

What about my reluctance to give the MMR in the late 90's? I read a peer reviewed article in one of the most reputable medical journals that said there was a link between the MMR and autism.

Obviously I didn't know Wakefield had falsified his results and I trusted the peer review process in such a reputable journal.

You're the person demanding peer viewed articles. Wakefield published in one of the most reputable peer reviewed medical journals. Of course people believed him. It's very easy to be sceptical in hindsight but I suspect that given your insistence on the importance of peerr reviewed publications, that if you was around at the time, you would have believed it then too.

So you Google?

I was around at the time.