Do you think there is common ground in vax discussion? Effective communication 101.

[kathymuggle]

I am growing weary of the cyclical nature of many of these discussions.  I do not see much middle ground at the moment - and wonder how we can learn anything from each other if we do not get past some stumbling blocks.

Here are some obstacles I see:

Vaxxers should not:

-assume all non vaxxers are stupid.  No one is going to listen to you if you come across as condescending.

-play the "children in xyz or from this era are dying from this!"   Yeah, well, most of us do not live in xyz, and are trying to figure out the disease and vax risks where we live.  

-trot out herd immunity or "co-relation is not causation " in every.single.argument.    I suppose some newbies here have not heard it before but it does get old.  For extra bonus points - apply herd immunity to all diseases in very broad strokes - cuz you know, all diseases are the same. 

-claim you have seen all sorts of VPD.  Because you haven't.  Unless you live overseas or work in a major, major hospital.  To the few poeple who have seen serious VPD's: I do understand a person being swayed to a POV by what they have seen, but it does not make a great argument unless the stats back it up.  Yes, this goes for non-vaxxers as well.

-Assume all VPD are horrible, with horrible risks - because some are mild diseases.

-come into conversations for the purpose of pot stirring.  Nuf said.

Non-vaxxers should not:

-list crazy sites.  It just makes us look crazy.  There is plenty of fodder from things like the CDC - use it.  If you do list a crazy site, put a disclaimer on it ("I know this site is controversial but this particular article has some cool points")

- downplay the existence or complications from VPD.  I do think the risks are small - but they are there.  Not all VPD's or vaxxes are equal.

- I have not heard this one lately, but it does float around from time to time:  Vaxxers on MDC are not sheeple.  

On other issues it is not a communcation problem, but a genuine lack of common ground.

Herd immunity, how one views the body and its healing capabilities,  the validity with which one views anecdotal evidence and trust in authority are all going to come into play.  

A non-vaxxer who believes herd immunity is a flawed argument is not going to be able to have a fruitful discussion with someone who believes herd immunity is the reason we vaccinate.  

I am bravely going to hit submit.  If anyone wants to add to the list, feel free.  If anyone has any idea on how (if?) vaxxers and non-vaxxers can communicate in a way in which either party understands the other a little better, please add. Vaccination (or not) is one of the weightiest decisions parents make - it would be nice if we could talk about it more effectively.  I know the above tone in the lists is harsh, but I figure if we get it all out - we might be able to move on more effectively.

[BeckyBird]

I am also growing weary of these discussions. I will admit that I have been guilty of several of the non-vax sins, lol!  To the delight of those of you who find me annoying, I will probably step away from the forums for a while. Maybe just stick to lighthearted, easygoing sections where there aren't so many arguments. I can't seem to control my temper lately, and it's not healthy to participate in the discussions when all I do is argue.

[shiningpearl]

thank you. 

One I would like to add: 

Your child will get the whole world sick and how can you live with yourself.

I do like to hear both sides of the story, and appreciate the research done by others, but the personal attacks need to go.

Also, this is the the vaccination forum, the "I am not vaccinating" forum is for people who have made the choice or are looking into not vaccinating.  If people who are pro vax want to lurk there, can't stop them, but it is not the place to try to convince others how wrong their beliefs and ideas are.  the "I'm not vaccinating" forum has guidelines posted at the top of the page.  http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/not-vaccinating-forum-guidelines

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

I am also growing weary of these discussions. I will admit that I have been guilty of several of the non-vax sins, lol!  To the delight of those of you who find me annoying, I will probably step away from the forums for a while. Maybe just stick to lighthearted, easygoing sections where there aren't so many arguments. I can't seem to control my temper lately, and it's not healthy to participate in the discussions when all I do is argue.

I agree.   I notice I rarely want to post anymore these days and haven't been posting much at all (on the vax forum anyway). I still post on MDC, just on the lighter, friendlier topics such as pregnancy)  It definitely keeps my blood pressure down that's for sure!

I understand vaccines are a terribly controversial topic and everyone on this forum most likely has a very strong opinion one way or the other.  I honestly don't think we will ever see a middle ground on here because there are so many people from all walks of life who have seen different things during their lifetimes, and who are adament about their point of views.  That's fine because I know I stand strong on my opinions on vaccines, and there is nothing wrong with that.  It just makes for more arguments when you have so many strong-willed folks in one place. 

There just have been too many rude comments/insults with condescending tones either made directly to myself or others that makes me completely lose interest in this forum. 

[amnesiac]

I certainly appreciate any attempt to have a more clear, productive dialogue. I would just remind everyone in advance to post in a respectful manner.

[WildKingdom]

How's this- If pro-vax people can't talk about herd immunity, then anti-vax people can't talk about "toxins."

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

How's this- If pro-vax people can't talk about herd immunity, then anti-vax people can't talk about "toxins."

Why not?

Herd immunity is a theory.  Toxins are not.

[Turquesa]

Awesome thread topic!!  May I add some?  I agree with a lot of Kathymuggles (e.g. neither side should be trivializing VADs OR vaccine reactions), so I'll try for some new ones.  Note the occasional cutting and pasting. 

Vaxxers should:

1. Not label people who aren't CDC-compliant as "anti-vax."  There is a LOT of gray area in this issue.  I am a selective vaxer.  I continue to question every vaccine that I choose for my children...and question myself every time I choose against a vax.  I can't stand the lack of solid, independent research on vaccines, but I also see the genuine value of vaccines in some cases and places. 

I realize and respect the fact that there are definitely avowed anti-vaxers in this forum, but please don't assume we're all with them.

I align myself with the vaccine safety/choice movement, not the anti-vax movement.

2. Recognize that a conflict of interest is not a "conspiracy theory."  It is a statement of fact.  The mere existence of that conflict doesn't mean that somebody will exploit it, but keep in mind that the pharmaceutical industry has posed a veritable problem in medical research and overall trust in the nation's public health system.

3. Recognize that reluctance to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

4. Not condescend to people who disagree with them by assuming that they're "uneducated," "anti-science," or that make their medical decisions based on blind loyalty to Jenny McCarthy.

5. Not take the intellectually lazy route of dismissing an article or blog post because of its author or affiliations (e.g. Dr. Mercola or whale.to).  You actually have to READ the content and debate it on its merits (or non-merits). 

Non-vaxers (and delayed/selective vaxers) should:

1. Not condescend to vaxers by assuming that they are uneducated" and "haven't done their research."  I can tell that a lot of the pro-vax people who come to this forum love their children deeply enough to put a lot of though into their decision to comply with the CDC schedule.

2. Not simply link people over to Mercola or Natural News or Inside Vaccines.  At least do a little research into the sources that they're citing, and cite those once you determine that they are legit. 

3. Recognize that the decision to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

4. Avoid hyperbolic language, in general.  You may sincerely believe that vaccines are "toxins" or "poisons," but the language sounds fanatical and does little to reach "outsiders."

5. Not take the intellectually lazy route of dismissing an article or blog post because of its author or affiliations (e.g. Paul Offit or the AAP).  You actually have to READ the content and debate it on its merits (or non-merits).

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Why not?

Herd immunity is a theory.  Toxins are not.

Toxins aren't theoretical, but the idea that the minute traces of these toxins that are found in vaccines can do any kind of damage whatsoever is purely theoretical.  And has far less support than there is for herd immunity. 
 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

How's this- If pro-vax people can't talk about herd immunity, then anti-vax people can't talk about "toxins."

Interesting!  I did not know talk of toxins bother pro-vaxxers.  What bugs you, specifically?

The herd immunity argument has a lot of judgment attached to it - we are bad, bad bad people for not risking our children for the  good (as vaxxers see it) of society.  Toxins do not have the same judgment attached to them unless I am missing something? 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 


Interesting!  I did not know talk of toxins bother pro-vaxxers.  What bugs you, specifically

The herd immunity argument has a lot of judgment attached to it - we are bad, bad bad people for not risking our children for the  good (as vaxxers see it) of society.  Toxins do not have the same judgment attached to them unless I am missing something? 

Toxins absolutely have the same judgment attached - vaxers are filling their children with TOXINS and KILLING THEM!!!  zomg.  And then theres the, "I will NOT put TOXINS in my CHILD!  I don't want them to DIE!"  Even though fatal vax reactions are very rare.

I think non-vaxers should also stop pushing the whole, autism is caused by vax, agenda.  It's tiring.

Honestly though, I think this list will get so long that there will be no debate anymore - just a bunch of people who disagree but can't actually talk about it.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I think non-vaxers should also stop pushing the whole, autism is caused by vax, agenda.  It's tiring.

I don't think they do in great numbers.  Someone upthread mentionned that not all non-vaxxers think alike and this is absolutley true.  Some do worry about autism but many don't.   It is actually an annoyance of mine that pro-vaxxers assume most vax objections come down to autism.

Honestly though, I think this list will get so long that there will be no debate anymore - just a bunch of people who disagree but can't actually talk about it.

Why do you think this?

I have enjoyed getting a few things off my chest.  I do not know if anything positive will come of it.  Maybe not - or maybe not in this thread.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 8/9/11 at 8:53pm

[SneakyPie]

Meh.  I'll say what I want, and I don't need a tutorial about what non-vaccinators might not like to hear.  If people can't handle the reality of herd immunity and the non-connection btw autism and vaccines, they don't have to read what I write.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by SneakyPie 

Meh.  I'll say what I want, and I don't need a tutorial about what non-vaccinators might not like to hear.  If people can't handle the reality of herd immunity and the non-connection btw autism and vaccines, they don't have to read what I write.

Bolding mine.  Well.... we don't know what you are going to write before you write it. 

You can say what you want.  If you are genuinely interested in discussion though (and not just, yk, bickering) you might want to listen when people say something shuts down conversation.

There are pro-vaxxers here I respect and will listen to, but I can tell you they are not the aggressive ones (such as "can't handle the reality of..."  statement above).  I am sure this works both ways - there are non-vaxxer here who are pretty good at discussing things in a respectful ways. 

[WildKingdom]

Sorry, I still can't get past this idea of "don't talk about herd immunity."

I mean, that's like saying "Debate the use of antibiotics.  But don't talk about germs!  After all, it's just a theory!"

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

Awesome thread topic!!  May I add some?  I agree with a lot of Kathymuggles (e.g. neither side should be trivializing VADs OR vaccine reactions), so I'll try for some new ones.  Note the occasional cutting and pasting. 

Vaxxers should:

1. Not label people who aren't CDC-compliant as "anti-vax."  There is a LOT of gray area in this issue.  I am a selective vaxer.  I continue to question every vaccine that I choose for my children...and question myself every time I choose against a vax.  I can't stand the lack of solid, independent research on vaccines, but I also see the genuine value of vaccines in some cases and places. 

I realize and respect the fact that there are definitely avowed anti-vaxers in this forum, but please don't assume we're all with them.

I align myself with the vaccine safety/choice movement, not the anti-vax movement.

2. Recognize that a conflict of interest is not a "conspiracy theory."  It is a statement of fact.  The mere existence of that conflict doesn't mean that somebody will exploit it, but keep in mind that the pharmaceutical industry has posed a veritable problem in medical research and overall trust in the nation's public health system.

3. Recognize that reluctance to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

4. Not condescend to people who disagree with them by assuming that they're "uneducated," "anti-science," or that make their medical decisions based on blind loyalty to Jenny McCarthy.

5. Not take the intellectually lazy route of dismissing an article or blog post because of its author or affiliations (e.g. Dr. Mercola or whale.to).  You actually have to READ the content and debate it on its merits (or non-merits). 

Non-vaxers (and delayed/selective vaxers) should:

1. Not condescend to vaxers by assuming that they are uneducated" and "haven't done their research."  I can tell that a lot of the pro-vax people who come to this forum love their children deeply enough to put a lot of though into their decision to comply with the CDC schedule.

2. Not simply link people over to Mercola or Natural News or Inside Vaccines.  At least do a little research into the sources that they're citing, and cite those once you determine that they are legit. 

3. Recognize that the decision to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

4. Avoid hyperbolic language, in general.  You may sincerely believe that vaccines are "toxins" or "poisons," but the language sounds fanatical and does little to reach "outsiders."

5. Not take the intellectually lazy route of dismissing an article or blog post because of its author or affiliations (e.g. Paul Offit or the AAP).  You actually have to READ the content and debate it on its merits (or non-merits).

Dismissing an "article" because it is on whale.to is not intellectual laziness.  Personally, I refuse to give that anti-Semitic nutcase any clicks.  If there is any information worth reading on that site, it will be somewhere else on the web that is not as offensive.

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by Sarahfeena 

Toxins aren't theoretical, but the idea that the minute traces of these toxins that are found in vaccines can do any kind of damage whatsoever is purely theoretical.  

tell that to a vaccine injured child's parents...

[lovebeingamomma]

good idea in theory OP but every reason to vax or non-vax has to be on the table to talk about otherwise it will offend at least one person..as we can see this very thread is turning into an argument.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Sorry, I still can't get past this idea of "don't talk about herd immunity."

I mean, that's like saying "Debate the use of antibiotics.  But don't talk about germs!  After all, it's just a theory!"

There may not be a common ground on this point.

briefly, here are issues on herd immunity, as I see them.

1.  Some people do not think it works

2.  Some people acknowledge it might work, but do not think it is appropriate to ask a family to risk their childs health for a societal gain

3.  Some people are weary in how it is trotted out in every argument -without any sort of display of understanding on the different diseases.

It also seems to me to be a conversation stopper.  People trot it out in a discussion and the discussion ends, or changes to discussing herd immunity.  

I relate to # 2 and 3 in the above list.  I don't know how to have a discussion with someone for whom herd immunity is the foundation of vaccination.  I can ( and do ) point out it does not work for all diseases - but that is about it.  I can't accept the premise that we should vax for the masses - so where does that leave us?

Some things are easy (you don't call me stupid, I won't call you a sheeple).  It is possible stuff like herd immunity has no common ground.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

good idea in theory OP but every reason to vax or non-vax has to be on the table to talk about otherwise it will offend at least one person..as we can see this very thread is turning into an argument.

Yeah - I think I was just getting stuff off my chest in the OP.  

I am tired of some of the cyclical nature of some of these debates - but maybe the reason they get so cyclical is because people do not feel heard.

I do not know if this is remediable - is there common ground on some of the big ideas?