Why the sudden hostility to anti-vaxxers? (Not here, I mean in the culture at large...)

[Rocaille]

Sorry, this will be garbled: I'm thinking aloud. First of all, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I don't think I've ever refused a vaccination, either for myself or DD. But in the last year or so, I've noticed a sudden ramping up of hostility towards people who choose not to vaccinate their children, not necessarily on Mumsnet, but certainly in the culture at large. Even the term 'anti-vaxxer' is a new coinage, I think.

I'm posting to find out, has anyone else noticed this, and if so, what do you make of it?

For me, it's reminiscent of the way that, some years back, the trans agenda appeared suddenly at the forefront of public discourse. In my tinfoil-hat-donning moments, I wonder who decides what issues we debate, when we debate them and to what end. Why now for anti-vax? I suppose there have been some serious measles epidemics in recent years, but that doesn't seem to account for the heat and urgency of debate, or the way anti-vaxxers are being characterised as a certain type of person.

Another thing that makes me associate pro-vax with the trans agenda is that it's potentially about the compulsory medical treatment of children, and removing the parent (mother) as the final arbiter of what can and cannot be done to her child's body. That's where I see pro-vax going.

Could this be another dimension of the same agenda, or have I completely lost the plot?

No, it is not. It might not be true for everyone but that doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.

I didn't say it didn't work.

It doesn't work the way they say it works.

I'm in the US. When doing pre-conception OB/GYN visits I was tested for immunity and it was found that I was immune to measles and mumps et al but no immunity for rubella. Thus I was advised to get the rubella shot and be retested in 60 days to confirm immunity prior to attempting to conceive. If you get proper pre-care in the states you are advised to have your vaccinations up-to-date prior to TTC (to protect your potential baby until they can be vaccinated).

And, for those unaware... there are more than 100 strains of HPV (40 of which known to cause or contribute to cancer). Warts are caused by HPV - plantar (foot), hand (palmar), and genital... they are just caused by different strains. HPV vaccinations (post HPV plantar wart strain
contraction) have been found to be effective in curing plantar warts in people that have recurring episodes of growth. But it is a new vaccine, and no pharma/vaccine can be trusted blindly so caution is needed as with any treatment.

Vaccinations are a medical victory, some are necessary for us to thrive as a species (polio et al) and some of them are not as vital. Compulsory vaccination (in the US) for polio and some others is a price you pay to be part of a society (i.e. spend time outside your domicile in spaces like school and some workplaces) that endeavors to protect the vulnerable and enable them to enjoy life outside of medical captivity when possible. Not vaccinating because you follow some celebrity or confirmed quacks is inexcusable. Not vaccinating because you read some website touting vaccination conspiracies is inexcusable. Not vaccinating at all could be a death sentence for someone you never meet. Or, it could be a death sentence for someone you love - many are selfish in their convictions until the reality of their transgressions condemn a person they love.

By all means read, research, learn, and question but for the sake of the immunocompromised please vaccinate at least for the big killers - for the lives of your loved ones and mine.

Thanks Errol, that's really interesting!

(Interesting as well that the effectiveness of the two dose MMR is described as 66 - 95% against mumps. That seems a very wide estimated range, it's surprising that it can't be more precise.)

Given that the efficacy of the mumps vaccine clearly wanes its not surprising. And how would you measure effectiveness other than by epidemiology where you can't control exposure etc?

Why was this posted here? It's not a women only issue?

It doesn't work the way they say it works.

How do you know?

Jesus this thread.
HPV is not spread through contact with sperm. Condoms don't fully protect against HPV transmission as they won't necessarily cover the affected area and HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer which is why women are vaccinated rather than boys (although I agree both should be purely to stop the spread)
It's also not a disease that effects just straight people and lesbians are fully capable of catching it from another woman. Homophobic vaccinations, aye ok.

Lass op posted here with an agenda that gender critical women who don't want to see children transitioning with hormones and surgery are akin to anti vaxxers. It's a "you are all terfs" thread in disguise

How do you know?

Because honest doctors will tell you so.

There was a book about it a while ago as well, that went over how people got this idea that it was all about chemical imbalance. I can't think of the title, maybe someone else can.

The information is pretty well known now in the sense that you can find it easily if you look, but most people are still being told that the drug correct a chemical imbalance by their doctors. But if you are interested google can likely find some good resources for you.

twatty the rate of cervical cancer in lesbians is extremely low as it is spread to women primarily via unprotected heterosexual sex. Cervical cancer is also very rare even among heterosexual women- very few of those who catch HPV get it. It is tragic when it does strike but I think that those who are cautious about it have a real point. It is nothing like measles for instance because people can get tested for HPV before having sex with a partner, which is sensible to do anyway. If you’re worried about cancer risks, the pill raises the risk of breast cancer which is a more common cancer than cervical anyway. Yet very little consternation about that.

The information is pretty well known now in the sense that you can find it easily if you look, but most people are still being told that the drug correct a chemical imbalance by their doctors

I believe it's exactly how it works for me.

I believe it's exactly how it works for me.

Why do you think that? How would you know? I've taken those kinds of drugs, you still can't see what they are doing in terms of their mechanism.

Obviously I can’t know how they work. But my dd has a year of depression that had not changed despite numerous therapeutic interventions. Citalopram turned bee back into the person she was before she got ill in 3 weeks, and she is still that person 2 years later. If that wasn’t the correction of a chemical inbalance, I have no idea what it was.

Why do you think that? How would you know?

Because in instances where my mood has dropped and I start taking them, I feel better in twelve hours, pretty much instantly, as you would expect if there was a defective serotonin mechanism.

But you seem very sure everyone is just like you.

@Goosefoot- how do you think anti depressants work?

Straying off topic but there's doubtless more than one cause of chemical imbalance which can cause depression so the right correction is needed - in my case it was under active thyroid/thyroxin.

how do you think anti depressants work?

I don't think anything no one knows how they work.

“I don't think anything no one knows how they work.”

But you’re absolutely sure it’s nothing to do with brain chemistry.

This is getting a bit silly now.
I used to run pharmaceutical trials. I had to attend hours of lectures on biochemistry and pharmacology, ethics, legislation, research methodology, to name but a few.
Bringing antidepressants to the market has taken years and years of research. Sadly, the earlier drugs weren't good, mainly because knowledge of brain chemistry wasn't very advanced. The antidepressants we have now are much better.
What antidepressants have to do with vaccination is not clear to me.

I have been looking at issues connected with AIDS recently and wondered if there were people who still believed that AIDs is not caused by HIV.

And the answer, of course, is yes. This is despite the fact that since effective medicines were introduced controlling the replication of HIV AIDs deaths have fallen dramatically. I couldn't even understand the theories that were being put forward to explain this. Some statements were grotesquely funny - someone asked "if HIV is so dangerous why is Magic Johnson still alive?" and then put forward some bizaare conspiracy theory that was much more convincing (to them) than the answer "because effective medication has been available since 1996."

I don't get why people want to believe such stuff, but once the idea is fixed it seems impossible to dislodge it.

. If you’re worried about cancer risks, the pill raises the risk of breast cancer which is a more common cancer than cervical

Gosh yes totally. I remember reading a pill packet at the age of 15 and seeing the side effects and they were thrombosis, cancer etc. I was appalled and have never taken it. I also wondered whether years on the pill might be connected to infertility later on, considering the whole point of it is to stop you conceiving.

I also didn't know cervical cancer rate was lower among lesbians. That is very interesting.

Goosefoot, I like your posts. I like the questions you raise.

HIV has had huge amounts of research funding. Vast. And it has paid off.
Unfortunately less fashionable killer deseases get a lot less. Maternal health for example.
Maternal mortality is rising again. Interesting to ponder.

That doesn't mean that I don't think HIV research isn't important. It has been fantastic. But the bulk of the medication and care is not available to poor people who don't live in rich countries.
Research funding is politically driven.
Try getting a bit of money to study the use of CBD compounds for MS. We knew about it 40 years ago. Only now is there a tiny bit of work being done.
If you have motor neurone disease, hard luck.
Anyway. Now I am going off on a tangent. But it is a subject close to my heart.

But you’re absolutely sure it’s nothing to do with brain chemistry.

So, these things are not opposites. You can not know how something does work, but know how it does not work. It's not that uncommon.

From what I understand from reading about the research around this, the chemical imbalance theory of depression is considered to be not only unproven but have some significant problems. And the idea that the drugs fix the imbalance similarly is not shown by the evidence, and has problems. They don't know how they do work really, when they work at all.

I'm not sure why you all are so invested in the idea that they work a particular way. If you were really interested to know about it, the internet is at your fingertips, you don't need to make out like I'm trying to feed you some kind of line. Why not just look into it yourself?

But maybe it speaks to the original point which I was making with regard to those drugs, that when people find out what their doctor has said is not true and was never thought to be true, it creates a lack of trust, and that has repercussions in terms of people's attitudes to what doctors and pharmaceutical companies tell them.

HPV vaccine is going to be offered to boys in Scotland from this year at the same age as girls at age 11/12 I think. HPV doesn’t just cause cervical cancer but is also part of the reason for a spike in nasty oropharyngeal cancers (mouth and upper throat cancers) in youngish people ie 30s/40s. If you’ve ever come across someone who’s had one of these cancers and radical surgery to treat it you’ll see why reducing HPV transmission is so important- they are horrendous cancers. As is cervical cancer which people are generally more aware of. I think only offering to girls was certainly homophobic and I’m glad this is being corrected here at least