Please explain, succinctly, the anti vac argument

[WorkingBling]

With all the current news re vaccines and measles I realised that while I am very comfortable and believe strongly that vaccines are the most appropriate defense, I don't actually understand the anti vac argument. I remember the Wakefield thing but that has been debunked. So why do people still resist? What is the thinking?

Someone told
Me that he doesn't "agree with vaccines" in much the same tone as he mightn't say he doesn't agree with the death penalty but I was too nervous to push him further without understanding the issues better.

If you repost this in chat you should get lots of answers

Watching with interest as i dont understan the anti vax movement either

Good counter arguments to each of these, of course:

Vaccines are "full" of nasty poisons;
Lots of ppl have been damaged or even killed by vaccines;
Vaccines (but not wild diseases) overwhelm the body;
Some vaccines cause autism;
Vaccines have side effects;
Vaccines haven't been researched enough;
Vaccine immunity wears off but wild disease immunity lasts forever;
The wild diseases aren't that bad;
Lots of people don't get immunity even after vaccinated so why bother;
Some people have genetic predisposition towards certain disorders and vaccines (but not wild diseases) trigger the disorder;
As previous but both vaccine & wild disease are dangerous (medical advice agrees in some of these cases that vacc not appropriate);
It's just too scary to have to make a decision;
Vaccines are pointless because disease isn't caused by microbes, it's caused by 'imbalance' in the body;
Some companies make lots of money from vaccines so jabs must be bad;
Kids who get wild diseases are healthier & don't get weird things like leukaemia;
You can't easily sue the vaccine manufacturer if things go wrong;
You're shouldn't let yourself be manipulated and a "sheeple" to just do what medical establishment recommends.

Was never sure that Wakefield was as important in the thinking as people like to make out now.

In the late 90s, he had not been comprehensively debunked and there were perfectly respectable scientists saying 'actually this isn't enough to prove a link, but it is an area which needs more work'.

And that's exactly the time when the UK government allowed the licence of the measles jab to lapse, thus removing it from NHS.

There was never a golden time when nearly everyone had MMR, because a number of the other objections had been running for years before that, but those who did not want it could easily get alternative jabs. The aim was to get children immunised, and it general worked. When the aim became for everyone to have the MMR, exactly at a time there was public controversy, it backfired massively.

I actually out this down to new Labour's instinctive bossiness. When there was large scale public rejection of the new DPT jab in the 1970s, health planners took a different and more child-centric view, and re-supplied the old jab in which there was confidence (in order to keep the rates up). There was a diminution, but not as serious as that which followed the forcing of MMR or nothing.

I think the effect on perceptions of being bullied by the government down to the withdrawal of single jabs at exactly the poorest time to do so is rarely considered when looking at behaviour in accepting/rejecting recommended schedules.

Some parents don't understand risk or the science behind vaccinations and, understandably prioritise their own children's wellbeing over that of the community.

Well in our case family history. ds1 is very severely disabled. I didn't want history repeating itself.

I'd also personally rather my kids had mumps illness while small tbh, to give a better chance of lifelong immunity & if they were going to go down the vaccination route for that I'd rather they received the vaccination wheh it's likely to benefit them (ie as adults).

I have a feeling that efficacy may reduce without circulating disease. That will become apparent over the next 20-50 years I guess. In some cases this doesn't matter (for example whooping cough - the approach now seems to be about protecting newborns & babies rather than trying to make everyone immune - this is fine for w/c but wouldn't work so well for eg mumps, measles & rubella where adults can be badly affected). That's not an anti-vaccine argument - but I would like to see evolutionary
Biologists employed on these committees to consider whether mass vaccination is a sensible idea (it varies depending on the particular disease organism).

I also have issues with the lack of choice in how they are delivered. Ds3 has had seizures so I don't want him having pertussis vaccination, but that means he can't get a tetanus jab.

And the politics is ridiculous. I contacted a private GP to see whether we could get some particular individual vaccinations. He asked for time to think about it. He came back and said he fully understood my concerns & why clinically I would want to take that approach, but he was worried that if he supplied single vaccinations he would come to the attention of the powers that be & be struck off! This is a ridiculous situation & about politics not health.

Finally I believe an individual approach should be taken to vaccination. It needs to be understood that some are more at risk than others & steps taken to identify those before any vaccination is given. Alterbative schedules should be available for those at risk. And if someone does become damaged steps should be taken to recognise that and investigations should take place. Parents should not be treated like loons for raising concerns.

And finally every child & adult with a severe disability (whether vaccine damaged or not) should be properly cared for by the state. Parents shouldn't be driven to the edge just trying to secure basic services. BTDTGTTS
I'm wouldn't call myself an anti-vaccinators though. I'd rather vaccinations were viewed in the same way as any other drug - with pros & cons which will be different for each individual.

I terms of 'don't understand the science' - I have a science PhD & have spoken directly to researchers who work on my eldest son's condition. I have also spoken to consultants. I understand the science better than most GP's & general paediatricians. The issue is, as ds1's neurologist said 'your questions are reasonable but you're asking us too early, come back in 25 years and we might have the answer'.

So we made the best decision we could on the available evidence.

Same as we do for any drug or any potential medical procedure.

Saintly, my understanding is that the medical advice takes into account that some children are genuinely at risk and that therefore shouldn't have it. I understood the idea is that the herd protection impacts those children. So I am not asking about anti vac in cases where children have specific allergies or disabilities. It's the ones who seem to be anti vac for moral, ethical or on the basis of rather spurious science I am trying to understand.

Your points re delivery are v interesting though.

Most GP's don't have a clue beyond very simple straight allergies to vaccine ingredients. They were not able to advise me on my case. One initially said we should go ahead & then changed his mind a few years later. There is actually no medical advise for people in our position. But the politics makes it difficult for doctors etc to advise caution (although a few have had 'off record' conversations with me).

Vacvinatuon decisions need to lose the politics & become clinical decisions made on an individual basis.

I wouldn't say totally anti vac but opposed to many vaccines for moral reasons. I object to the fact that they all come together so you can't refuse just one and I object to the ages at which they are given. Since my objection is moral I object to risking my child to protect someone else. Rubella, for instance is given at 13 months old , why ? , it's to protect an unborn baby so I object to my child having it but no objection to a young woman having a rubella vac. Flu is mainly to stop my child passing flu to an older vulnerable person, ok target these older people with a vaccine, leave my child alone. Whooping cough is most dangerous for a newborn baby but they don't have the vaccine, yet my 3 and a half year old needs a whooping cough booster so they don't pass whooping cough to a newborn. That's a (very) simplified version but is the gist of my objection.

Think that's a good (though totally separate) point about rubella.

According to NHS, it confers protection (in the 95% for whom it 'takes') for at least 20 years.

Now, back when it was given singly at 11+ that would probably cover the typical childbearing years. Nowadays, given at 1 and 3ish, and with later childbearing (often 30+?), there's a gap. As this will first affect children born after 1998 (singles withdrawn, 11+ boosts completely ended) the effect on that cohort - and the herd in general - is yet to be seen.

Lljjk your post is so mind blowingly ignorant I would not even know where to start! People like you are dangerous as you staggering ignorance impacts on other peoples health.

There's research to suggest that a baby under 12 months is unable to process the vaccine and turn it into immunity, which is why they are all repeated.

cannottakeanotherdayofthis

I think lljjk is listing bullet points associated with a particular position (which is what OP requested). Not supporting them.

I think that lljkk was posting a list of arguments people use, don't think she was saying those were her arguments.

I know a lot of people who haven't vaccinated. In the vast majority of cases amongst the people I know it's because of reactions in older children. The others fall into what I woulf call the natural living/green brigade & tend to be careful about all medications/eat organic/limit meat etc. People think this is a new movement but I know people in their 80's & 90's who either rejected vaccinations for their children for similar reasons, or were not vaccinated themselves because their parents didn't trust them. Vaccine refusal is not a new thing. When measles vaccination was introduced for example a lot of people didn't bother with it - it was only with the introduction of the MMR in the 80's that it became more common (and even then - before Wakefield the % being vaccinated was smaller than it was today). In fact unless figures have changed since I last looked vaccination rates are higher today than they have ever been (including before the MMR controversy).

Those aren't my beliefs. I vaccinated my own kids with no regrets.
I don't know why people believe some of those things. There are 2 million things in the world I don't understand.

Because some people are stupid.

I apologise ll, very glad those aren't your views. V sorry!

No problem :).
Supported a fellow thru death of his wife (a close friend). Their son wasn't vaccinated for those kinds of reasons. I hope the boy is jabbed up now. I'd hate the dad to lose another loved one.

It's a false assumption that there is an 'anti vax argument'.

There are arguments for and against different vaccines at different times, in different environments to different people.

Afaik there was an anti whooping cough vaccine campaign in the 1970s.

In the mid 90s (before Wakefield) there was an issue with the single measles jab (as it was then) because apparently it was made used aborted foetal parts. I don't know if this was true. You never hear it mentioned now. If it was I'd consider that unethical and wouldn't want to use it (pro choice btw).

There are lots of anomalies in vaccination policy eg hpv is just given to girls, as was the old rubella jab. So why are boys now given rubella but not hpv?

Also we are yet to find out if the hpv vaccine will deter women from getting smear yeast later in life.

We don't give the bcg anymore at 13. So the question becomes- was it given longer than necessary? Did the last few cohorts of routinely vaccinated 13 year old need it any more than now?

Then there's the UK policy of not giving the chickenpox vax. I had an American friend who thought all Britain parents were crazy anti vaxers for not paying to get it done privately like she did!

There are those of course, who do think that boys should be given the HPV jab because they can suffer directly from the HPV. Unlike rubella where no man has managed to get pregnant.

Now, if 'they' are trying to eliminate rubella altogether, that in itself is not a bad idea, but why not say so? Why pretend it's the most awful disease when the symptoms are extremely for the vast majority of people who catch it? When the real worry is only for women in the earlier stages of pregnancy, so why not have a much greater public health campaign to alert women of childbearing age of the need to be aware of their rubella immune status?

It's odd isn't it? I did get my rubella status checked in my mid twenties - my friend told me she did it and I thought it was a good idea. I had rubella as a child & grew up in 70's (with circulating disease) so thought I'd be okay, but if I had a daughter I'd definitely advise them to get checked as an adult.

Didn't have to state a case or anything either, the GP was more than happy to do it.

I was never vaccinated against rubella until after my second child was born, only because I changed schools at the wrong time, and that was the first time I was offered it.

I met a woman with a 25 year old (same age as me) who had special needs and she told me it was because she caught rubella whilst pregnant. I was already vaccinated by this time, I am thankful my children are healthy but only just now it's made me think how irresponsible my mother was, and she wouldn't have had to suffer the consequences. I'm very lucky that enough other people had been vaccinated.