Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   How Do You Decide? (http://www.mothering.com/forum/239-how-do-you-decide/)
-   -   What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers? (http://www.mothering.com/forum/239-how-do-you-decide/582268-what-biggest-more-impressive-arguments-pro-vaxers.html)

mykdsmomy 12-24-2006 03:08 PM

In light of recent threads, I've begun to really wonder why people who truly research decide to vax?
What are the deciding factors or major pro arguments that lead people to vax ?

I'm honestly not trying to start WW3 here. I like to see both sides to the extreme to see where people are coming from and why some highly intelligent people who really do read and research can come to a completely different conclusion than another? What am I missing here?

DevaMajka 12-24-2006 03:36 PM

I am not a pro-vaxer, but I could see vax'ing based on numbers. If you use the pre-vaccine disease incidence rate and the current day risk of complications, and you compare that to the *known* risks of vaccines, you'd find that *with that info* vaxing looks less risky.
(of course, you'd have to believe that the incidence rate would be the same today as it was prevaccine, and you'd have to believe that all the known risks, are the only risks.)
Ok, so I guess that's a crappy one. But it's the only one I can think of. lol

mamakay 12-24-2006 03:52 PM

When you break things down, there are still ok reasons to vax for some things. I can see how someone would want to (not on the schedule, though).
The more valid reasons just aren't very compelling. The "fake" reasons are the motivating ones. But they're not true. The real reasons, when you think about them, also show you what a big experiment this whole vax thing is, and how most of the assumptions tend to prove wrong.

Momtezuma Tuatara 12-25-2006 01:20 AM

The reality is that as Blessed said, if you are unlucky enough to get full-on tetanus, or polio, it isn't nice. I guess serious complications from measles and chickenpox aren't nice either. Getting liver cancer after Hep B (which can only happen if your diet is trash and you use liver processing OTC or prescription drugs) isn't nice either. Doctors who counsel people whose 4 week old baby has died from pertussis caught from an ICU nurse (true, I got told about this last night)find it hard, particularly when the "experts" say the vaccine is the answer. It didn't matter that the ICU nurse was fully vaccinated. Now the ICU is requiring all ICU nurses to have the TdaP or else they can't work there.

It comes down to whether a person focuses on the WCS (worst case scenario) or whether they can feel that their non-ICU, normal baby, and parenting skills are enough.

Most pro-vaccine parents I know, don't have the knowledge or the skills to nurse their children through infections that are more than a sniffle. They rely on the experts for answers, and certainly have absolutely no faith in the immune systems of their children. They are the ones who say "I couldn't live with myself if my child got really sick and died." So no matter how rare anything might be, those are the reasons they can't get past.

Often, many of them, knowing that its a fragile reason in terms of logic, then add on the altruism angle, by saying that they are protecting all the other kids so that they won't die either.

I've tried to show these people all the risks, facts and data, but ultimately it will come down to wanting to do the "right" thing according to the system: to be accepted by the system.

When they vaccinate their children they don't have to worry, and its the worry relief that is the most important thing for them, as I hear them talk about it.

Spy 12-25-2006 01:48 AM

I'd say fear of disease, no matter how remote the chances are, and incredible faith in official reassurances about safety-efficacy of vaccination would do it for the most.

bobandjess99 12-25-2006 02:06 AM

I think it is just that they *can't* break themselves free of the matrix, LOL!

They simply can't wrap their minds around the fact that *everyone* else is wrong..all the doctors, mothers, friends, the gov't, "experts", etc....

It is REALLY difficult to say "hey...all these other people believe the world is flat, but there are a couple of whackos who are *insisting* it is round.....crazy anti-flatEarth people!....Who cares that they have maps and some sort of crazy "prrof" using some new-fnagled math and stuff...there are even some people who claim to have BEEN around the world....Ya, right!! Crazy people......"

Redifer 12-25-2006 02:12 AM

So true, bobandjess... So many of the people I know who vax (who refuse to do any research about it either) are so indoctrinated into the "trust everyone in a position of authority/always go with the majority, so many people can't be wrong" thing.

It also usually manifests itself in every aspect of their lives; the keeping up with the Jones', the run out and buy the newest crazed-trend item, the "I don't know why I want it or need it, but the media tells me I have to have it/society says I'm supposed to want it/my neighbor has it therefore I must"... I'm not saying this goes for everywhere, but from the people I've seen and conversed with here, it's all so inter-connected you can't tell where one thing ends and another begins.

Momtezuma Tuatara 12-25-2006 02:18 AM

I don't think the OP is talking about the people who the medical profession calls the bandwaggoners. I think she is talking about people who do research, but want to vaccinate.

I think Spy has hit the nail on the head in that these people do convince themselves that vaccines are so safe that its worth doing, even if there isn't much of a chance of dying from a disease. Sort of "Well, we can do it, its safe, doesn't do anything bad, so why not?"

People do have a comfort zone that, no matter what facts are put there, they prefer to do what others do.

xmasbaby7 12-25-2006 11:28 AM

I have been thinking about this lately, too.

I just switched to a non-vaxing ped and even she says, "Look, as much I have reasons why I won't offer them in my practice, some of them DO work really well."

Some of them probably do work better than others, even though we don't like to give any of them credit around here. (Granted, at what cost to the body do they offer that protection from said disease)

I personally had my own switch philosophically, where I really faced the fact that with either choice, no parent has ultimate on control on how thier child handles disease and what they become exposed to anymore than whether or not their child suffers a reaction.

I STILL think there are better odds in not vaxing and raising the healthiest child possible, but I have accepted that I can't control this absolutely.

So if a parent does all the research and still chooses to vax, I think it is because they think that is still thier safest route because treating illness really intimidates them.

HeyJoe 12-25-2006 12:07 PM

It's neither a big argument nor an impressive one but I've heard quite a bit of "well I was vaxed and it never hurt me" as an end all to the conversation. Of course the many holes in this are obvious so I'll not go into them.

Deborah 12-25-2006 12:27 PM

I see several hurdles.

First, if illness is always seen as something bad and to be avoided, then why not avoid it? The fact that illnesses in childhood actually accomplish something positive is so contrary to the received wisdom of our time that most people cannot possibly wrap their minds around it.

Second, for people who don't know much history, geography and demographics, it looks as though vaxes really did "save" us. And if we stop vaxing we will be unsaved, obviously.

Third, the conspiracy explanation is a bit far-fetched, especially since their is no evidence that the staff at the various drug companies are avoiding vaxing their kids and grandkids. (I don't think there is much of a conspiracy, just a fatal combination of greed, pride and ignorance.)

Fourth, as has been mentioned, people trust authority. Why not?

Fifth, it is easier to go with the flow, cause once you start questioning who knows where you might end up? It looks to me as though vaxes are one of the last things to be questioned, too. People will do a home birth, cloth diaper, skip the circ, breastfeed for years and so on, before they will start questioning the safety of vaxes.

Sixth, there is a lot of guilt-tripping out there. You gotta vax for the poor, the immune compromised, the people overseas who won't be able to afford vaxes unless millions of us use them to get the price down, the kids with heart problems, the preemies...

aira 12-25-2006 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah
(I don't think there is much of a conspiracy, just a fatal combination of greed, pride and ignorance.)
Don't forget the massive, staggering, mind-blowing arrogance.

mykdsmomy 12-26-2006 02:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post

When they vaccinate their children they don't have to worry, and its the worry relief that is the most important thing for them, as I hear them talk about it.
This is soooo true! Unfortunately this kind of logic rings true for so many things we do in this world. It's why we feel safe doing whatever the government stamps as "safe". The FDA stamp of approval is a magical thing :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post
People do have a comfort zone that, no matter what facts are put there, they prefer to do what others do.
I think this pretty much sums it up It is a total comfort zone not based on fact or honesty but on comfort and trust in the powers that be. Is it brainwashing? I think so and unfortunately I am guilty of buying into it way too often. Maybe it doesnt boil down to the hard cold facts and evidence but more so the support you get from highly trusted professionals and other parents that you are doing the right thing because it's what they think you should do :

huggerwocky 12-26-2006 02:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mykdsmomy View Post
In light of recent threads, I've begun to really wonder why people who truly research decide to vax?
What are the deciding factors or major pro arguments that lead people to vax ?
My child is more likely to be be harmed by the disease than by the vaccination. Easy decision. That's the main reason. Is it so mind boggling someone might have a different opinion?

LongIsland 12-26-2006 02:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spy View Post
I'd say fear of disease, no matter how remote the chances are, and incredible faith in official reassurances about safety-efficacy of vaccination would do it for the most.



Fear of getting sick (with anything, including fever) + Faith in the FDA = Very Easily Manipulated Parent

13Sandals 12-26-2006 02:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
My child is more likely to be be harmed by the disease than by the vaccination. Easy decision. That's the main reason. Is it so mind boggling someone might have a different opinion?
I for one don't have a problem with someone reaching a different conclusion. The reason things get so heated between vaxers and nonvaxers is that nonvaxers don't have the freedom to make an alternate decision. For those of us who don't agree with you (ie. my son's neurological damage after the cp vax is, I believe, more damage than a case of the chicken pox ever would have done) , we can't opt out as easily as you can opt in. Your decision is respected. Our decision is ridiculed - even for those of us who have seen our children damaged from a vaccination.

momto l&a 12-26-2006 02:54 PM

The fear of being differant

Proverbs31 12-26-2006 02:54 PM

The way I see it, even if one were to do no statistical reseach whatsoever, how could we not be skeptical of vaccines simply by reading the ingredients? Seriously: aluminum, mercury,formaldehyde, borax, anti-freeze...how on earth are they convinced that it "safe" to inject these toxins into tiny babies...not to mention the ick factor of human and/or animal blood, monkey kidneys and aborted fetal tissue:

Amila 12-26-2006 03:07 PM

People really, truly (even Dp's friend who is a vax researcher for MERCK) believe that the risk of a bad adverse reaction is 1 in a million. :

kdtmom2be 12-26-2006 03:42 PM

I have always been opposed to unnecessary vaccinations, since I was a teenager and they started telling me that I needed to be REvaccinated for things that I had already been vaccinated for, because it turned out that there were batches of "bad" or ineffective vaccines in the years that I was vaccinated (though not necessarily the city centers). At 16 my mother let me stand up for myself and say NO.

So why will I ultimately vax my own children? Because the system here forces you to vaccinate for certain things or they won't let you put your kids in the public school system! Why not homeschool? Simple, finances. BUT, I don't have to vax them until age 5, and not for everything, just a select few. So DH and I have agreed on selective, delayed vax, and are ok with that. He was dead set against having his other two kids vaccinated for HepB and chicken pox, but was over-ruled by both his ex-wife AND the court system. Go figure.

SOME vaccines do SOME good.... the polio vaccine nearly erradicated a deadly and harmful disease. But with the incidence of polio now being so very low, I would prefer not to vaccinate my children for it unless they were planning on travelling to a country where it was much more prevalent than it is here in Canada. That goes for a whole host of other diseases/vaccines as well.

Oh, and I don't vaccinate my dog either... he's had one rabies vaccine. They are starting to show a link between animal vaccines and animal cancer incidences, wish I could remember a few links for you off the top of my head. (And I wonder when they will start showing those same correlations in the human populations?) They are also showing that the animal vaccines last for WAY longer than they initially thought. i.e. vaccines that they used to administer annually they are now saying last as long as 3-5+ years.

13Sandals 12-26-2006 03:59 PM

kd - I though vaxes were optional in Canada?

just a thought - I tried the same schedule with my younger son. didn't vax until he got close to K and then only the absolutely necessary ones. He had a speech regression at 4 1/2 after the cp shot and we are still trying to get him back to where he was. i'd homeschool, move out of this state - do anything rather than let him receive another vax. used to be you were born autistic...now it can happen anytime..just a coincidence that my son regressed 'later than usual' right after vaxing. was going to happen anyway. delaying doesn't necessarily get rid of the risks of vaccinating - just delays them. Not saying you were assuming that - you can understand I just feel the need to bring it up as I had no idea kids could regress that late.:

Proverbs31 12-26-2006 04:03 PM

In Canada you can legally exempt your children from vaccines and still send them to public school:

http://www.vran.org/legal/forms.htm

alegna 12-26-2006 04:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
My child is more likely to be be harmed by the disease than by the vaccination. Easy decision. That's the main reason. Is it so mind boggling someone might have a different opinion?

Could you share the numbers or statistics that you used to reach this conclusion? When I researched raw numbers that's not what I found, so I'd be very interested if you have some hard numbers to show that.

thanks!

-Angela

AikeaGuinea 12-26-2006 06:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13Sandals View Post
kd - I though vaxes were optional in Canada?

just a thought - I tried the same schedule with my younger son. didn't vax until he got close to K and then only the absolutely necessary ones. He had a speech regression at 4 1/2 after the cp shot and we are still trying to get him back to where he was. i'd homeschool, move out of this state - do anything rather than let him receive another vax. used to be you were born autistic...now it can happen anytime..just a coincidence that my son regressed 'later than usual' right after vaxing. was going to happen anyway. delaying doesn't necessarily get rid of the risks of vaccinating - just delays them. Not saying you were assuming that - you can understand I just feel the need to bring it up as I had no idea kids could regress that late.:
How do you know it was the vaccines that caused the regression?

AikeaGuinea 12-26-2006 06:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Could you share the numbers or statistics that you used to reach this conclusion? When I researched raw numbers that's not what I found, so I'd be very interested if you have some hard numbers to show that.

thanks!

-Angela
What do you mean by "raw numbers"...what was your source for these numbers?

If you click here and scroll down to #4 there is a chart which explains "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable

Scattershoot 12-26-2006 06:20 PM

For many, it's just the fact that there is research that "proves" vaxes are safe. I know this is generalized and could go a million directions, but here is more proof that something has been "researched" and proven to be safe. It's about the safety of cloned meat.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/co...lone_1223.html

From the article:

Quote:
Two of the largest studies were provided by commercial clone producers Cyagra Inc. and ViaGen Inc. They tracked the growth of cloned and conventional animals and found no problems in clones that were not also present in other animals.

But skeptics remain unconvinced.

Kimbrell, of the Center for Food Safety, said too few animals have been cloned to conclude that they are safe to eat. He also said more independent research — provided by companies that are not in the cloning business - is needed.
Those who produce cloned meat and have billions at stake did research to prove that cloned meat was safe so therefore it MUST be safe. You see how simple that is.

alegna 12-26-2006 06:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea View Post
What do you mean by "raw numbers"...what was your source for these numbers?

If you click here and scroll down to #4 there is a chart which explains "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable
That link has no statistics. What I'm looking for is :
there are x number of cases of A disease in a given area in a year. With a population of Y, my child would have x/y chance of contracting said disease. Z% of cases of that disease require hospitalization. The normal treatment of that disease is qrs. QRS has these side effects. The vaccine for that disease is lmno. LMNO has these recorded reactions at hjk rate.

When I compared actual numbers like that (from the CDC fwiw), statistically none of the vaccines were worth the risk for my children. If there are numbers showing otherwise, I would like to see them.

-Angela

mamakay 12-26-2006 06:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AikeaGuinea View Post
What do you mean by "raw numbers"...what was your source for these numbers?

If you click here and scroll down to #4 there is a chart which explains "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...inepreventable
Aikea,
Pick one of those diseases, and one of those vaccines, and dig beyond the "parent pages" like this one, and the numbers are totally different.

Take pertussis the disease...
They say one in 8 cases of pertussis results in pneumonia.
Where did they get that from? Is that actually true?

Honestly, I'm not sure the risks outweigh the benefits all the time, but the numbers the CDC uses on these "communication" pages that are written for parents are totally a lie.

When we talk about "raw numbers", we mean "What research was the CDC using to make this statement?

The CDC cherry picks data that makes diseases look more scary than they are, and ignores research that shows that...say...most cases of pertussis are subclinical.
And they do the same thing to make vaccines look safer than they are.
And they do the same thing to make the vaccines look more effective than they are.

Pick one disease and one vaccine and we can show you exactly what we're talking about.

ETA:
Like this:
Quote:
Finally, we can look at the experiences of several developed countries after they let their immunization levels drop. Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.
Is that really and truly what public health authorities believe?
Or is that a load of crap?

wallacesmum 12-26-2006 06:40 PM

OP- I think a big factor is who you trust when it comes to adverse effects numbers. The CDC and the docs say there pretty much aren't any; other quarters disagree. No one has convincingly argued in anything I have read that there are good reasons not to do straight up comparative studies of vaxed vs. non-vaxed kids, so it is a bit of an art to glean the truth here.

mamakay 12-26-2006 06:40 PM

Ok Aikea...now read this.
THIS is raw data on the epidemiology of pertussis.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/115/5/1422

Quote:
In the prevaccine era pertussis epidemics followed a cyclic pattern, with peaks every 2 to 5 years. With the marked reduction of pertussis by vaccination, the same cyclic pattern still occurs. Studies relating to reported pertussis and Bordetella pertussis infection have been reviewed and analyzed. The increase in reported pertussis over the last 2 decades is mainly due to a greater awareness of pertussis and perhaps to the use of several less efficacious vaccines.

Studies of prolonged cough illnesses in adolescents and adults reveal that 13% to 20% are a result of B pertussis infection. Serologic studies suggest that the rate of B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is 2.0% per year. The rate of cough illnesses (pertussis) caused by B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is between 370 and 1500 per 100 000 population. These data suggest that there are between 800 000 and 3.3 million cases per year in the United States.
So how can the CDC's

Quote:
It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.
and "one in 8 cases of pertussis result in pneumonia" stuff be true?
It can't!
They are just cherry picking data to scare you into vaccinating your kid!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 7.14%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.