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.

The aborted fetus thing is the rubella jab. It's a myth that it's made from fetal tissue, but it was developed in the 40s using an aborted fetus. I do remember reading an article once about how it was taken without the mother's consent (a poor black woman in the US).

I vaccinated my DS and am not religious or anti abortion but I can understand the moral objection there. I also don't think it's a bad thing that people want to research and question the substances being given to their babies but obviously there is a lot of pseudo science out there which gets confused with real science.

it was developed in the 60ies and the virus used in the vaccine to this day is grown on a cell line which was derived from a single aborted fetus in the 1960ies (a legal abortion, in Sweden as far as recall, for non-vaccine related reasons). Even the vatican is ok with that.

ChickenSoupChef, thanks for acknowledging that you are grateful that other people had been vaccinated. I understand why you think your mother was irresponsible, and you are right it would have been your problem not hers if you had had rubella when pregnant.

However, these are the very reasons that I won't vaccinate against rubella. I don't want to give my child a vaccine to help protect someone else I'm not comfortable with the morals of doing that and if my child is damaged by the vaccine then the problem is mine to deal with. As for my child ,, potentially, having a rubella damaged baby in the future, I feel that is an issue for her to resolve herself before she has a baby, if she so wishes,.

I have a similar issue with mumps, since the mumps vaccine is to prevent adult male infertility I don't like giving it to a 13 month old baby,and particularly not a girl. Although, I acknowledge that anyone can get and have a problem with mumps or rubella, these are rare events, and the mumps vaccine is to stop my child passing mumps on to someone for whom it would be dangerous. Again, my child can choose to vaccinate when older, if he wishes.

This rules out mumps and rubella on moral grounds, I would actually have vaccinated against measles but since it comes with rubella and mumps, my desire to not vaccinate against mumps and rubella is greater than my desire to protect against measles, so I don't bother. Yes, I could pay for a single measles vaccine but by the time they get to 13 months, I feel that a lot of the danger has passed for my child and I object to vaccinating my child to protect someone else.

So, that why I'm anti vac MMR. Similar objections to other vaccines, which I'm sure this discussion will move on to in time.

Mymps was introduced because it made economic sense (avoiding missed days off work & reducing cost of hospitalisations for the NHS). The UK was actually very unsure for a long time about a)whether it was worth it and b) whether it might make the situation worse by increasing the age of people getting mumps. Incidences of male infertility are extremely rare - even when caught by adult males. Child cases are often asymptomatic. It's interesting to read back through the minuted discussions regarding the introduction of mumps though. It never had a strong clinical case, the arguments were around economics.

Economics is the argument for mass vaccination against chickenpox as well.

I personally believe theses vaccinations should be made available for those in risk groups, I an not convinced by the arguments for mass vacvinatuon. I do worry that in mumps in particular (where efficacy without circulating disease seems to be pretty low) that over the next 20 years more adult cases will be seen.

Thanks Saintly, for me, avoiding days off work or school aren't a good enough reason for me to risk my child with a vaccine, the same thinking would be behind the flu vaccine, again if we miss days then too bad, we will all cope.

Well I agree, but I think people believe that vaccinations are introduced solely on clinical grounds. Economics is always a big part of the discussion (check out recent JCVI minutes on men B vaccination for example). Even for devastating diseases the question is of cost vs lives saved. So if chickenpox (for example) costs the NHS more in terms of hospitalisations more than say meningitis B - you might have more chance of a chickenpox vaccination introduced

It's why I'd like to see an individual approach to vaccination - that would make each decision for each child (or adult) a clinical decision.

great - lets make individual speed limits too, after an extensive and thorough physical and driving test.

.. a fatuous remark, which makes a sensible discussion of vaccine policy almost impossible.

Why the focus on measles? Meningitis B and C are much more real risks to our children, with around 3,600 and 700 cases each year respectively. Far more than measles and also with a higher risk of complications.

My GP told me my child would die if she didn't have the whooping cough vaccine. When the NHS has foot soldiers such as these, the anti vaccers don't really need to do much.

Well, of course, worldgonecrazy - your GP was absolutely correct. The one thing we can all say with 100% certainty is that we are all going to die sometime!

How are speed limits remotely comparible? Do I risk damaging myself by driving at 70 rather than 100? Er no.

And what could possibly be wrong with an individual approach to vacvination taking into account an individual's family history & previous reactions. Or do the more susceptible really not matter.

I understand that many want to protect the vaccination programme, but I never understand why people argue against safer vaccination or are so against identifying those at risk before they're given something which destroys their life. Maybe someone could explain to me what is so bad about that. Catherina?? What's wrong with attempting to identify people in at risk groups in advance?

SideOfFoot, I do agree that your children will be able to make their own decision, in my experience I was unaware until after my 3rd child the consequences (not even the midwives mentioned it just seemed shocked I wasn't vaccinated) of rubella and I had no idea which vaccine I had missed until my first pregnancy when they tested me.

My issue with the vacs is that a certain amount of information we hear that is negative is (possibly/partly) true and because the nhs only inform us of the side effects, we are left in a situation where we don't really know what's best and frankly I'm reluctant to fully trust the vaccinations/nhs government to be completely open and honest about anything. But better safe than sorry

I think I understand some of the bigger picture issues now, thank you. But nothing on this thread has made me see the point about risk of vaccines for children (outside of those clearly at risk due to allergies, compromised immune systems etc).

I don't actually see the 'antivax' stance as anything whatsoever to do with the risks/benefits of the vaccines.

Rather as a manifestation of a conspiracy theory ie a behavioural issue, and as such something that can never be overcome by more explanation of the immunisations themselves.

Do I risk damaging myself by driving at 70 rather than 100? Er no.

of course it is more dangerous, also for yourself, to drive faster. But of course, if you think you are a great driver, or find reasons why driving more slowly is actually more dangerous....

What??

Do you believe vaccinations are 100% risk free for the recipient?

How arrogant chantico.

My apologies.

Seriously wasn't my intention, just how I see it.

Could you explain why you think I've got it wrong (without further epithet)?

So someone tells you their child is vaccine damaged & you automatically assume they're a conspiracy theorist? You genuinely believe they can never do harm?

No, I've really bogged up what I wanted to say. That wasn't it at all.

The impeccable medical reasons not to vaccinate (further in that child, or for any siblings) are unrelated to what I considered my start point of the 'antivax' (I should have explained from the outset that I meant those who reject vaccination when they have no medical reason).

And I had thought that the behavioural way of looking at it was relevant to that group.

Again, my apologies.

Oh okay I see what you mean.

I suppose my counter argument to that would be the issues with identifying who is at risk & recognising that currently no attempt is made to identify those. With hindsight family history would have suggested considering an alternative schedule for ds1 (not that that's an option these days) & his reaction to the first DTP should really have waved some red flags, but no-one asked & I was very pro-vaccination & didn't really think about it & so we went merrily on.

That's why I'd like to see an individual discussion really before any vaccination. I also think that the fact it is so very difficult to have that discussion encourages conspiracy theories iyswim.

Two of my 'mum friends' haven't vaccinated their children at all.

It's a little worrying tbh. One of them said that vaccinated children seem 'duller' afterwards

The other is just a hippy dippy lentil weaver who believes they cause autism - yet her kid has autism and hasn't had any vaccinations.

I was happy to follow the recommended schedule, my first child was vaccinated. I regret that decision and wish I had researched further. I also wish I had waited until after I had fully weaned as I might have had a better view of his risk profile or might have known more.

He had his first vaccine, BCG, when only days old based on the post code of the hospital he was born in, based on seriously flawed risk assessment. By this stage, and also at 8, 12 and 16 weeks, I didn't know enough to make the decision that he was at risk. Even now, a paediatrician who believes we made the right decision and won't push us to vaccinate will not sign our vaccine exemption but our immunologist will.

My middle child is likely to be lower risk from vaccines and it is something I will reassess for her in the future but I believe delaying vaccines in her case has reduced her risk of other health issues.

My third child is unfortunately, 1 in a million in many ways and I thank my lucky stars every day he wasn't born first. Given the many, serious and life threatening reactions he has had, I believe he would be very ill if he had survived the vaccine schedule.

Injecting vaccines bypasses the natural defenses of the skin, the lungs and the gut and requires our body to react in a different way to which it has evolved. (I wonder if inhaled vaccines or immunotherapy used in Switzerland in pill form are less damaging to the immune system?)

10 years ago, I was sent on a journey I never wanted to take. In that time I have asked more questions than received answers and still cannot say what the right thing to do is. The more I learn, the less I know, but I have learned a lot. I will continue to read, research and reassess my choices and hopefully one day I will feel less on the outside and there will be a solution that doesn't put children like mine at risk.

PS: this is the most reasonable discussion I have ever read on the subject on MN.

There is an opinion amongst some that polio on a sugar lump is better than injected polio as the sugar lump follows the natural route into the body that polio virus would take (usually fecal-oral).

I have some sympathy with that idea although have no idea whether anyone had looked at the difference in immune system activation (rather than just looking at the antibody end result).

The side effect of causing polio in a country otherwise free of the disease means it is no longer used in the UK.

"The side effect of causing polio in a country otherwise free of the disease means it is no longer used in the UK."

So why still routinely vaccinate against it? Why not put it into the same category as travel vaccines, or offer it in those areas which have high influxes of people from areas where it's still endemic?

Same with diphtheria - there have hardly been any cases in the western world for the last 25 years, and it's treatable with antibiotics. So again why not offer the vaccine on a more selective basis?