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.

I rest my case - I said that sooner or later, whatever vaccine is being discussed, someone jumps in and says that MMR doesn't cause autism, (even when MMR and autism have not been mentioned). You did exactly that, (an no, this is not autism - there is NO LINK) an exact quote.

MMR had been mentioned as far as timings were concerned pushing the diseases into an older age range. Vaccine damage had been mentioned with someone pointing out that vaccine damage wasn't solely about autism.

Nowhere have I expressed an opinion as to what I think causes autism. I have said that it's not one disease but a label for a collection of symptoms - which you agreed with.

I must apologise; but you have lost me here. You are correct - I did say as you quote. I really don't at all see what that has to do with this discussion - which is about vaccine 'damage', and the risks that some feel are much more substantial than they really are. Why is your case resting because I spoke about MMR and Autism? Does that somehow nullify my other points?

Let's not forget, that you attacked me personally for 'not giving a shiny shit' about 'vaccine damaged' children. " I am happy that my 8 year old can't talk, and may never talk, is doubly-incontinent and may always be so, needs constant one to one attention, will never live independently." I know parents of severely autistic children". The fact that you did not directly associate MMR with autism is totally beside the point. What you did very clearly do is associate severe autistic spectrum symptoms with 'vaccine damage', and make unpleasant judgements about my personality because I dared to ask for proof and evidence rather than just blindly swallowing these wild claims whole. For those reasons, I attacked your comments with the following points:

• Stories of the tiny % of children vaccines (and other drugs) that do affect badly serve to utterly distort perception of how often they really happen. If we took no risks, we would never get anywhere would we, and this is just scare-mongering with little basis in measurable reality.
• there is a total lack of evidence of harm beyond that already risk assessed by vaccine suppliers
• A suggestion of mass hysteria/groupthink leading to people making bad judgements by ignoring empirical evidence, and instead believing hearsay and gossip/rumour. Perpetuated by comments such as the one you made to me about 'vaccine damaged children'.
• Hypocrisy displayed by many who selectively believe and also disbelieve different information from the same sources i.e. the medical field and drug companies depending on what drugs they are looking at. Antibiotics are not subject to this hysteria, so no-one questions the claims made for them. Why?
• The borderline sociopathic behaviour displayed by those few who think it OK to let 'others take the risk' to protect them through herd immunity without having to risk themselves.

You have failed to refute or deal with any of these points - instead focussing on the extremely minor point of order that you have not associated MMR with Autism - something I never said you did. If you are going to throw nasty accusations around, and make assertive comments about the awful situation that autistic 'vaccine damaged' children find themselves in, then you should be prepared to be called on those comments and put some proof and evidence behind the claims you are so quick to make, or don't you have any?

I don't know who most of that post is addressed to. It looks as if you have decided to treat any poster who disagrees with you as if they are a group which is a bit odd.

I posted that you don't give a shiny shit about my child which is patently true.
You have asked me to try and be polite to you. You seem to think this is a debate society. It isn't.
I don't really care how thou expect me to conduct myself. This is my life and my child we are talking about so I'm not interested in your smug sanctimony.

I don't have any need to provide you with any evidence or justification for my decision making. I explain it to people who are relevant or or to people whose view I respect or who are able to discuss what is the reality of my life, rather than some abstract concept, without being a twat.
That doesn't include you.

vladimpaler
On the one hand you are unhappy with 'nasty accusations' and 'mass hysteria' and on the other, you refer to:

'The borderline sociopathic behaviour displayed by those few who think it OK to let 'others take the risk' to protect them through herd immunity without having to risk themselves'.

What is that, if not an example of a 'nasty accusation' and 'mass hysteria'?

Several posters have already said they do not make their decisions based on the concept of relying on others for herd immunity (a concept which is not without flaws). So where is the evidence to support your allegation?

On the subject of herd immunity and at the risk of repetition, please can you explain how adults fit into herd immunity requirements. In my experience, unless there are unusual circumstances, the vaccination records of adults, and the diseases they have had, and may be immune to, go largely unscritinised.

So, vladimpaler, how do unvaccinated/partially vaccinated/vaccinated but possibly not immune adults fit into the plan for herd immunity?

Reading this thread as someone with no science background and with three fully immunised children. I take away three things.

1. I don't get the 'moral' argument against immunisation - I can see the moral justification to get immunised as it benefits the vulnerable even if the risk factors are not high for yourself. But saying you are not immunising your children 'for moral reasons' does not make any sense to me, certainly not without a better explanation. For personal reasons yes - but I am scratching my head at the word choice 'moral' - honest/ principles possibly - or simply 'I have put a lot of thought into the decision'/ 'done the research' but just using moral as a fait accompli? - not sure that works.

2. Fully support more research into which individuals should not be immunised and potential risks of the immunisation schedule as it stands. But I don't think people should stop immunising their children as a matter of course, unless there is a valid medical reason not to. The more research there is the better children can be protected from any future potential vaccination damage.

3. With one child recently diagnosed with ASD and one child that I am seeking a potential diagnosis. The whole MMR/ Autism nonsense has inevitably been playing out in my mind but I am confident that there is no link. It is as has been stated down the thread - a distraction.

I suppose it can be argued that as someone who has already immunised then I am unlikely to want to retreat from this position at risk of under cutting my own justification for doing so. But I did think hard before - I just did not have any where near as much in the anti column as in the pro - certainly nothing concrete.

bigmouth, some people have moral objections to components of certain vaccines.

Re the 'medical reasons' for not vaccinating. The problem is that they are not currently very well understood. Many people only find out that their child/children should not be vaccinated when they go ahead with the schedule and their child reacts badly. There is also an issue with under reporting and the attitude of medical professionals when it comes to reporting reactions in general which can distort the figures when evaluating 'risk'. I completely agree that there needs to be more research in this area. Other areas of medicine are already moving towards a more 'personalised' approach.

RE the MMR/autism link. I think the silly part about this is that very people are actually suggesting MMR causes autism. There is a suggestion that it may act as a trigger (among many other things) in certain susceptible individuals. If people are willing to accept that some people are at higher risk of developing autism and that it may be triggered by environmental influences then it makes sense to include vaccines as a possibility rather than assuming the 'anything but' position.

Bigmouth, I object on moral grounds. I feel that a huge part of why you should vaccinate is for moral reasons, I.e. To protect those who can't be vaccinated.

But I feel that this risks my child so my child has to take a risk to protect someone else, hence, I object on moral grounds, not to all, but especially the rubella mumps, flu, whooping cough vaccines.

I don't have personal reasons for objecting and although I agree that there might be ann objection to some of the ingredients in vaccine, I think the word moral is the word that best sums up my objection. If it's moral to vaccinate and that is my objection then I'm objecting on moral grounds.

Nope that is a risk/ benefit argument - therefore your objection has no bearing on morality. One of the arguments for vaccinations is moral, but your argument against is personal side - 'the risk I perceive to my child is greater than the benefit.' I don't really see a moral element to that. Doesn't mean you are wrong to make that choice but you are wrong to describe in moral terms. Imo.

bigmouth, it isn't that the risk that I perceive to my child is greater than the benefit. That might be a personal decision.

It is that I don't want to do it because it is benefitting someone else therefore I am not doing it because I object to the morality of that.

Pagwatch - I'll take that as you don't have any reasoned responses; you just seem to function on instinct and hysteria. Enjoy the tin-foil hat!

fascicle:

"Several posters have already said they do not make their decisions based on the concept of relying on others for herd immunity (a concept which is not without flaws). So where is the evidence to support your allegation?

I have covered this twice already! Herd immunity is a very secondary consideration - immunisation is to protect you primarily, and of course the tax-payer when you catch something and have to spend a year in hospital (assuming you service the experience).

On the subject of herd immunity and at the risk of repetition, please can you explain how adults fit into herd immunity requirements. In my experience, unless there are unusual circumstances, the vaccination records of adults, and the diseases they have had, and may be immune to, go largely unscritinised."

Bugs don't care about record keeping. Outbreaks happen when the situation is right.

Take a look here: www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/herd-immunity

"So, vladimpaler, how do unvaccinated/partially vaccinated/vaccinated but possibly not immune adults fit into the plan for herd immunity?"

See above link; which I think will explain what herd immunity is, how it protects and what the requirements are.

Take a look here to see what happens when enough people believe the lies, gossip, hysteria and bad science of the anti-vaxxers:

www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/herd-immunity-and-measles-why-we-should-aim-100-vaccination-coverage

The link between a drop in vaccinations below the 'critical population %', and the re-emergence of measles is clear, and provable. Imagine that to be Polio, in the UK, which WILL happen if enough exercise their right to believe lies. Herd immunity protects those who have not vaccinated because they choose not to, or can't, but it only works if those numbers are kept low. Too many, and you get outbreaks. Quite frankly, if you choose to not vaccinate, I have absolutely no sympathy for you. You gambled, you lost. I just feel terrible for those who can't vaccinate - like children with cancer, or those too young to choose. Unlucky for them having the parentage they have.

bumbleymummy "There is also an issue with under reporting and the attitude of medical professionals when it comes to reporting reactions in general which can distort the figures when evaluating 'risk'."

What is your evidence for this? I think there is an issue of underreporting of alien abductions, as no-one takes them seriously. More research is clearly required. ;)

SideOfFoot:
"Bigmouth, I object on moral grounds. I feel that a huge part of why you should vaccinate is for moral reasons, I.e. To protect those who can't be vaccinated.

But I feel that this risks my child so my child has to take a risk to protect someone else, hence, I object on moral grounds, not to all, but especially the rubella mumps, flu, whooping cough vaccines."

Vaccination is not a moral question at all. Don't you care about protecting your kids from disease? What you are saying is like saying you object morally to taking out house insurance, as it only protects 3rd parties who happen to be in the house and have an accident. 95% of the reason to do it, is to protect you, not 3rd parties. Are you feeling OK?

Viadim, never felt better. I care about protecting from from a cocktail of dangerous chemicals given to them to protect someone else as in the case of the rubella vaccine.

The op asked why people were anti vax and I've explained why, in my case.

vlad, are you new to MN? You seem to be unfamiliar with some posters and their lives and yet you are being very judgemental and, quite frankly, rude. It's completely unnecessary.

Re herd immunity, the point that was being made is that many adults are either unvaccinated or their immunity has waned so there is quite a large pool of non-immune people even if the vaccination targets are reached with children.

For example, the whooping cough vaccine (as part of the 5-in-1) has a high uptake but immunity from it wanes. (Some studies have shown that this happens within 12 months) This means that many young children, teenagers and adults are not immune and herd immunity does not exist, despite the uptake figures suggesting that it should.

Re under reporting. Under reporting of ADRs is quite a well known issue. Here is one paper.

"Medical specialty was the professional characteristic most closely associated with under-reporting in 76% of studies involving physicians. Other factors associated with under-reporting were ignorance (only severe ADRs need to be reported) in 95%; diffidence (fear of appearing ridiculous for reporting merely suspected ADRs) in 72%; lethargy (an amalgam of procrastination, lack of interest or time to find a report card, and other excuses) in 77%; indifference (the one case that an individual doctor might see could not contribute to medical knowledge) and insecurity (it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a drug is responsible for a particular adverse reaction) in 67%; and complacency (only safe drugs are allowed on the market) in 47% of studies. "

Vlad.

Think what you like.
My son is 18. My DD who remains unvaccinated is 12.

I have explained myself to passing dickheads for several years but now realise there is no point except for the rare case where someone, some poster of feeling and integrity, manages to talk about this without being an utter twat.

If you displayed a modicum of consideration I would give you a respectful response. As it is, no need.

"vlad, are you new to MN? You seem to be unfamiliar with some posters and their lives and yet you are being very judgemental and, quite frankly, rude. It's completely unnecessary."

No, not new. On most everything else, I go with the flow. On vaccinations I attack ignorance, hearsay and lies wherever it appears. Why? Vaccines are a public health issue. PEOPLE WILL DIE IF WE STOP VACCINATING! If being rude and judgemental will save some lives, never mind; I'm sure you will live; as hopefully your children will if you start actually using evidence and science to evaluate your decisions rather than innuendo, scare stories and frankly lunatic thought processes.

"Re herd immunity, the point that was being made is that many adults are either unvaccinated or their immunity has waned so there is quite a large pool of non-immune people even if the vaccination targets are reached with children."

What evidence have you got for this exactly? Notwithstanding that, the point that you seem to be making is that 'lots of people are not vaccinated', and we are not seeing outbreaks. So if true, let's follow your logic. If many people are not vaccinated/vaccinations wear off, and we have no outbreaks then one of the following must be true:

1. Vaccines don't work.
2. Herd immunity is a myth.
3. The diseases we vaccinate against have all decided to pack up and go home.

We are not seeing outbreaks, and before we had vaccines we had epidemics of Polio, Whooping Cough etc didn't we? And we have numbers that show that your assertion about many people not being vaccinated is baseless. The fact that we are not seeing outbreaks proves that the vaccine levels are conferring herd immunity - this simply can't be argued with, as even a simple comparison of Polio levels in 1956 and 1996 show that something really drastic changed. Was it the vaccine, or something else? The most obvious answer would be the vaccine, and the numbers prove it as this pattern repeats across all preventable disease after vaccine programs kick in.

"are not immune and herd immunity does not exist"

If you are at the point where you are denying that vaccines work, or that herd immunity does not exist, then there is nothing more to be said. Good luck with that.

Under reporting does exist of course. However, using it as a buttress to try and support an argument that has no base in fact, studies or science is basically another attempt to use innuendo to support the unsupportable.

'Well, I think X, and although all the studies, science, medical profession etc prove that X is wrong, I still think it, and I can prove X has substance because I think people just don't report the symptoms caused by X." That is a circular argument; I can't prove you wrong, as no-one knows how much under-reporting occurs. However, you can't ignore the stuff we do know, which is provable; and without exception it totally supports vaccination. You remind me of the 12th juror who had never met 11 such obstinate fellows.

Pagwatch - a whole lot of dickheads in your life ain't there? Must make you feel great being the only one who really 'knows' in the sea of dickheads!

Most amusing that you (as others on this thread have) fall back on the old 'she's being horrible to me, so I am not going to discuss this with her' tack when someone actually stands up and calls you on your views. You actually have nothing to counter what I have said. or you would day it would you not? I am sorry that you don't seem to have the wisdom or enough strength in your character to push your pride aside and rethink things. I get things wrong, everyone does. Sometimes people correct me; and if I was wrong I will admit it and move on; for the greater good. Why do you persist in this view when so many dickheads around you think you are wrong, all the evidence says you are wrong, all the experts say you are wrong and you put your children in mortal danger?

The thing is, you're assuming that people's posts are ignorant/hearsay or lies when you don't actually know their experiences or have access to their children's medical records. You don't know what their doctors have recommended for them and you don't know posters' own qualifications. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume that the people posting here don't have scientific backgrounds.

You are saying that we 'are not seeing outbreaks'. Are you unaware of the pertussis outbreaks?

"your assertion about many people not being vaccinated is baseless"

Really? Many adults have not had the vaccines that we currently give to children. Adults over a certain age are assumed to have 'natural' immunity to measles for example.

""are not immune and herd immunity does not exist""

I'd appreciate it if you are quoting me that you keep my posts in context. I was specifically talking about herd immunity to whooping cough.

"the whooping cough vaccine (as part of the 5-in-1) has a high uptake but immunity from it wanes. (Some studies have shown that this happens within 12 months) This means that many young children, teenagers and adults are not immune and herd immunity does not exist, despite the uptake figures suggesting that it should."

"Under reporting does exist of course. However, using it as a buttress to try and support an argument that has no base in fact, studies or science is basically another attempt to use innuendo to support the unsupportable."

What exactly do you mean by that? My 'argument' was that reactions are frequently not reported so figures for reactions are not accurate. I can support that statement with studies that show the extent of under reporting. Are you saying that they are not factual, are not real studies or are not scientific?

Were you perhaps unaware that [[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850 immunity from the whooping cough vaccine wanes?

Immunity from the whooping cough vaccine wanes

Well there's one more for sure.

Actually in real life there are very few. Most people, my GP and my DDs consultant included, completely concur that DD should avoid vaccination. So my actions are completely supported by the experts .

So perhaps your wisdom and strength comments should be turned inward?
Although I doubt that somehow.

vlad, you may not be familiar with pagwatch's posts but quite a few of us here are and you're making yourself look very silly. You need to stop - seriously.

Oh lord, let her be - you can see how much she is enjoying herself with her pious inaccuracy. She trying to persuade me to save my DD from mortal danger although apparently I have to disregard DDs Doctor which is a bit odd.
she's an Internet genius. It's awesome.

True. Best to just let her keep digging...