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.

Yup, the MMR/autism response does get boring. I chose a non-standard vaccine schedule because I wanted the best immune response possible to the vaccines given, whilst giving the minimum number of vaccinations realistically required.

The Wakefield study was not an area I even thought about- the only influence it had on me was that it was part of the social influences that got myself and other parents thinking about and researching the vaccination schedule. Yet whenever any parent questions vaccinations it's like a Pavlov dog reaction "You do know that the Autism study/wakfefield was completely discredited". I want to respond "Yes I do you numpty, and that's not why I have chosen a non-standard route".

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.

What about a male midwife? He would have no need to vaccinate himself for his own or his unborn child's health. The only reason he should be vaccinated is for the women he meets in his job.

Interestingly I was given the rubella jab at school, only girls received it then, and I had no intention of ever being pregnant so for me it was a complete waste. My brother and 2 uncles were nurses, not midwives, I must ask if they had rubella vaccines when they trained.

history shows that only vaccinating girls doesn't work to keep rubella in check - in countries that did (or still do) that, sons and husbands are infecting their mothers/wives and congenital rubella still occurre(d). As soon as boys and girls are vaccinated, rubella embryopathy no longer occurs.

Sash, Carherina, these are all valid points in terms of protecting the unborn baby but they raise huge moral issues in terms of the child having the vaccine. Should my child be having a vaccine to protect somebody else? For me, this is my objection, it's a moral objection.

But why not make it clear that you are trying to stop the disease circulating, rather than it being a serious disease in itself? That is implied from this extract:
"Measles, mumps and rubella are common, highly infectious conditions that can have serious, potentially fatal, complications, including meningitis, swelling of the brain (encephalitis), and deafness."

Whereas on their pages about rubella they state:
"It is usually a mild condition that gets better without treatment in seven to 10 days." There is no mention of serious complications for other than the unborn child.

Thought you might struggle with the succinct bit.

Llyk gave a pretty good rundown of the reasons people cite.

Genuine medical reasons for not vaccinating are rare (although not rare on the vaccination threads on mn).

In my humble opinion most people don't vaccinate because they don't understand basic principles of science, have limited firsthand experience of the disease and believe woo over scientific advice.

Have probably offended lots of people, but there we go. Sorry. Will leave now before I say what I really think of the argument (and cause lots of offence).

Should you not do everything in your power to ensure that your child does not kill another? For me, rubella is an extremely moral choice as well.

LaVolcan, yes, if they were honest about it and said that the object of the rubella vaccine was to stop circulating rubella disease, well, that would help a lot, at least it would be honest, rather than pretending that rubella is a life threatening disease for my child. I still wouldn't do it though.

Toddler, maybe you're right about why most people don't vaccinate, for me it's a moral objection although I do admit that I don't have first hand experience of the diseases.

Carherina, but at what cost, my child being permanently damaged by a vaccine to protect someone else, and yes for some people the rubella vaccine will be a moral choice, they feel it is morally correct to protect another child.

SideOfFoot I'm actually almost impressed with your brazen selfish attitude. Feel free to thank me and other less selfish members of society who did vaccinate our children, so that your precious DC did not suffer from measles or other such potentially lethal diseases when they were vulnerable newborns.

Or perhaps they will end up deaf from catching it in the future? But it's obviously a risk you're prepared to take despite the chances of complications from illness being far more likely than this from the vaccinations.

Genuinely perplexed.

Aranan, this post asked why people were anti vax and at least I was honest enough to explain why. I didn't ask others to vaccinate their children, that's someone else's choice, I suspect, though, that you didn't vaccinate your child to stop them passing a disease to my child, but because you think you are protecting your child. That's fine. I decided differently and as for the diseases, I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

Should you not do everything in your power to ensure that your child does not kill another?

Statements like that are little more than emotional blackmail. If you don't have the disease yourself you will not pass it on to others, so if your child never catches rubella then whatever other misdemeanors they commit in life, passing rubella on won't be one of them.

Like SideOfFoot, I don't think that many people vaccinate with a view to protecting others, but primarily for their own/child's benefit.

when has rubella vaccination permanently done anything to any child apart from making them immune? How much double think does one need to have to be afraid of some vague side effect, but ignore the real dangers of rubella?

yes, because everyone else is holding up an umbrella, LeVolcan you are not even feeling the rain, so what's the fuss over umbrellas?

I think there is far too much in the MMR for one jab.

Personally, I wouldn't inject that much into a dog. So I certainly am not going to do it to a 1 yr old baby.

That doesn't, however, mean I am anti vac. I am anti - doing it the way that the government force me to do it. It's politics. WHY can't you have the single jabs? (mumps not available at all in a single jab in the UK, so the only way to get it is via the MMR)

Also, rubella. I will give that when my children are older. Totally unnecessary at 1 imo.

Measles is horrible for the vast majority of people who catch it. I looked after a young girl who missed her gcses because of it, had to retake the year, was separated from her friends. Because her mum "didn't believe in vaccination". Chicken pox is often nasty and can lead to necrotising fascititis which is a PICU admission neither of mine was that sick with chicken pox, but I regret not paying for the vaccine.

I believe that for the vast majority of children vaccination is safe and will give them better not worse health.

Catherina I had a bad reaction to the single rubella vaccine I had when I was 12 (pre mmr generation).

Mmr rubella immunity is not lifelong. It is actually more dangerous to the babies of pregnant women to give it at 1 & 4 when it may wear off during their reproductive years than the old system of giving it at 11/12.

Also if boys should get rubella immunisation they should get hpv too. But I don't see many pro vaxers rushing their 12 year old sons down to a clinic to pay for a private jag.

Stillwish we don't routinly vaccinate against chickenpox even though it can in rare instances be fatal, just like measles. So why aren't the pro vaxers out protesting outside parliament about this?

There are so many of these inconsistencies in our vaccination policy. Why shouldn't we question it?

One person does not make the vast majority. I caught measles as a child; I don't remember being particularly ill. That wouldn't qualify me to say that is the experience of the vast majority. Certainly in the 1950s the view was that it was now a mild disease for most children. It could have course, have changed since then.

I do know someone who got necrotising fasciitis. Her case made the news. It was nothing to do with chicken pox, but followed a routine op for something else. She did live to tell us about it later.

Jackie - your views on the rubella vax are pretty much my own. It worries me that there is little awareness that the immunity can wear off. I asked my adult DD (rubella vax, at 11 ish) if she knew this? No, had never given it a moments thought and nor had anyone ever drawn it to her attention.

as for the diseases, I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

Sideoffoot, you are not taking your chances. You are also taking advantage of all the other parents who vaccinate their children. If everyone had your attitude you'd be making a very different risk assessment for your children as their chances of getting the diseases would be very high. Presumably you are very grateful to the rest of us for the protection we give your children.

I do admire that you are prepared to admit that you are making the choice for selfish reasons though. I suspect many people do the same but don't admit it.

My son got whooping cough (despite vacs - luckily the vaccinations prevented his siblings getting it). I can't understand how anyone would risk an infant getting that disease. It was extremely frightening.

rubella vaccination (as the disease) causes transient joint pain, particularly in post-pubertal girls. However, such a reaction is rare in children vaccinated on schedule.

Canyou, maybe if other people didn't vaccinate then there would be more disease then I would make a different decision. However, I can only play the hand I've been dealt and make a decision based on how things are now, I can't account for the behaviour of others. I also believe, that, vaccinations aren't the only thing to wipe out disease, I think a lot has to do with better hygiene, better nutrition, living standards, less overcrowding. I'll use the example of scarlet fever to make my case for this.

This is not how society (or logic) works though

"if there were more people freeriding and eroding herd immunity, I might vaccinate, but until more people forego vaccines, I will talk badly about them..."

you can't account for the behaviour of others (although you seem perfectly willing to account - wrongly - for the irradication of infectious diseases - take a look at what is happening in California with measles in clean, well nourished, uncrowded but unvaccinated communitiies) but you should at least acknowledge that you are playing your hand based not on the cards you've been dealt but ones the rest of us who vaccinate hand you for free. A" thank you for allowing me to make an entirely selfish decision" would be nice.

My son got whooping cough (despite vacs - luckily the vaccinations prevented his siblings getting it).

But he was vaccinated, and still got it?

I wonder if SideOfFoot will stampede to get her kids jabbed the moment she meets someone who has been damaged by a VPD. It reads like SOF has only thought about the risks of the vaccines, not the risks of the diseases.

My dad's great-gran was the only one of 5 children to survive diphtheria in a posh family in 1877. 4 children dead in one week. Just like that.