Vaccines: how do I talk to my anti-vac wife about it?

[phildonnia]

... those that do not are actually protected in most cases (Notice I said most) from contracting the diseases because the majority of the people around them ARE VACCINATED.

So at the end of the day it really doesn't matter if they vaccinate or not. Their children are unlikely to catch the disease.

Here's another tip: Since almost all people stop at stop signs, the chances of getting in an accident from blowing right through are exceedingly small.

 

[truethat]

Here's another tip: Since almost all people stop at stop signs, the chances of getting in an accident from blowing right through are exceedingly small.

false analogy. You are mixing your ideas here. You're example is based on human error. Mine is based on nature.


But let's take your lovely example and put it to use in a situation that DOES involve human error.


Ehem


Vaccinations are safe because most of them which are manufactured, labeled and distributed by humans, and then administered by humans are safe because most of the them are probably safe. The risk of them not being safe is exceedingly small.


Let's just take a vaccine because most people who take vaccines have no ill side effects. So since most people are fine with it we can just assume it is perfectly safe. The risk of them not being safe is exceedingly small.


Thanks for the example. As I said I do agree for the most part with vaccines. However it does strike me that most of the people in the pro vaccine crowd are completely ignoring the potential for human error. Your example makes it clear.

 

[Giordano]

Is Pertusis something that is covered by vaccinations in the US the way MMRI and Hep B are? I'm unfamiliar with it.

Yes, standard part of the vaccination series in US, and probably most other places. As for the warnings- who ever said that vaccines had no risk? For example, some people are allergic to the chicken egg materials used to grow certain viruses. However, this is much lower risk than pertussis itself. A much lower risk than driving your child to school! If you are willing to take the risk of driving them to school, why worry about the risk of the vaccine?

The entire question of risk assessment by individuals, and why it is often not logical, has been the basis of a lot of study. People often magnify certain very minor risks, but ignore major ones.

By the way- I was wrong, polio vaccination is still recommended in the US.

 

[Drachasor]

But the fact stands. If a person doesn't inoculate their child, they are honestly no more at risk than their peers because the nature of the vaccination has, for all intents and purposes wiped out the disease from likely being spread.

If enough people do that, then the protection of the community ends. Even 20% of the population not vaccinating is far more than enough. You need something like 95% getting vaccinated.

In parts of the country this IS becoming a problem because of people reacting to hysteria.

Can you check this out btw. I thought it was interesting that they wrote
...
You can understand why this would freak a mother out no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPT_vaccine

Do a little more research. The chance of an allergic reaction is very, very, very small. The chance of getting the disease is much, much, much greater. This protects against a disease that HAS caused fatalities.

Note:

This serious acute neurologic response to whole-cell DPT is a rare event. The estimated excess risk ranged from 0 to 10.5 per million immunizations (IOM, 1991). The committee stresses that this is not the strongest statement regarding causality; the evidence does not "establish" or "prove" a causal relation....

The evidence remains insufficient to indicate the presence or absence of a causal relation between DPT and chronic nervous system dysfunction under any other circumstances. That is, because the NCES is the only systematic study of chronic nervous system dysfunctions after DPT, the committee can only comment on the causal relation between DPT and those chronic nervous system dysfunctions under the conditions studied by the NCES. In particular, the chronic dysfunctions associated with DPT followed a serious acute neurologic illness that occurred in children within 7 days after receiving DPT.

That's less than a .00105% chance of a severe reaction to DTP...now...

DTAP: The acellular vaccine is safer to administer in that it causes substantially fewer side-effects (estimated at 90% fewer), which commonly include local pain and redness, and/or fever.

So DTAP that's .000105%, possibly much, much less.

The actual diseases, which are still around is worse. Stop vaccinating kids, and it can crop up more and more.

Note, that despite the really, really, really rare possibility of an allergic reaction, NO DEATHS caused by one have ever been reported. So the medical community is very effective at stopping potentially bad side effects.

 

[Giordano]

I think the stop sign analogy is perfect! Where I live, there are lots of 4 way stop signs. Everyone coming to the intersection must stop. If the cross traffic will always stop, why should I?

Truethat- again vaccines do have risks. Low risks. Diseases have risks. Big risks. You multiple the risk of the vaccine times the number of people who receive it versus the risk of the disease, and the number of people likely to get it. If the vaccine is lower risk overall, it is recommended by doctors. If the vaccine represents a higher risk overall, it is not approved. But again, you have the right to make your own choice, and the responsibility for making the correct choice for your son. I know you believe you are making the correct decisions here. But when I had to make a decision for my own kids, I had them fully vaccinated.

 

[truethat]

I am actually not afraid of any side effects (as I've posted I have pretty strong kids healthwise) but I can understand why someone who has a little baby would be scared to death. Even telling someone "hey don't worry we can fix it, it doesn't need to be fatal" is enough to put a scared new mommy off of vaccination forever.

I am trying to contribute to this conversation because for years I've seen the vitriol, fear mongering and insults lobbed at mothers who for all intents and purposes are basically just scared of vaccinations. And the arguments this man will need to convince his wife will have to step away from those attitudes.

I would suggest for example, which hasn't really been brought up, that the OP examine the rates of illnesses in his area, the likelihood of contagion. For example if he lives in a neighborhood that has a lot of immigrants, that argument may give the wife pause. She should realize by not inoculating that she is basically relying on the vaccines of others to protect her child from fatal diseases or very serious ones. If they lived where I live, the conversation would be easier.

But the reality of it should be examined. Not why "over all" vaccinations are better but why is it specific to this woman.

Some of the information in this thread has lent itself to that sort of dialogue. Some has not.

 

[truethat]

I think the stop sign analogy is perfect! Where I live, there are lots of 4 way stop signs. Everyone coming to the intersection must stop. If the cross traffic will always stop, why should I?

Truethat- again vaccines do have risks. Low risks. Diseases have risks. Big risks. You multiple the risk of the vaccine times the number of people who receive it versus the risk of the disease, and the number of people likely to get it. If the vaccine is lower risk overall, it is recommended by doctors. If the vaccine represents a higher risk overall, it is not approved. But again, you have the right to make your own choice, and the responsibility for making the correct choice for your son. I know you believe you are making the correct decisions here. But when I had to make a decision for my own kids, I had them fully vaccinated.

I did too. Did ya read my posts! (except for the H1N1)


I do think the bolded part is the part the OP might consider with his wife. I think that's one of the only things that addresses the issue.

 

[Drachasor]

I am actually not afraid of any side effects (as I've posted I have pretty strong kids healthwise) but I can understand why someone who has a little baby would be scared to death. Even telling someone "hey don't worry we can fix it, it doesn't need to be fatal" is enough to put a scared new mommy off of vaccination forever..

It's literally far, far more dangerous to drive the kids to school, let them play outside, or any number of other activities. Freaking out over vaccines IS irrational. I can understand someone being scared, but it is important for them to realize the fear isn't reasonable.

The worst case you can find is something that's been done tens to hundreds of millions of times and never once resulted in death or, as best I can tell, long term injury. The chance of anything serious happening is literally so small (a handful in a million doses) that it is hard to count. Compare that to any number of other risks children are exposed to every day which DON'T protect them from anything.

 

[laca]

Darlin' for the last time, we don't LIVE in the pre-vaccination era. We live in the NOW.

Most people DO vaccinate their children. And most people WANT to vaccinate their children.

The number of people who do not are pretty much a fraction of the rest of society in the US.


And unfortunately for you (because you get so twisted over this fact) those that do not are actually protected in most cases (Notice I said most) from contracting the diseases because the majority of the people around them ARE VACCINATED.

So at the end of the day it really doesn't matter if they vaccinate or not. Their children are unlikely to catch the disease.

Huh? You acknowledge that vaccines are keeping your children safe from disease but refuse to vaccinate them? WTF? The nutters at least believe that vaccines do harm. You just acknowledged they are keeping your children safe from diseases! Mind-boggling. You're basically saying that vaccines work, but like any other medical procedure, they carry some risk, so let's have everyone else but me and my kids take those risks and reap the rewards. I'm genuinely disgusted.

What do you think will happen when the unvaccinated reach critical mass? What is going to keep your children from contacting the disease? How will you live with yourself in case they do get seriously sick because you refused to vaccinate them, knowing that vaccines work?

I'm stumped. I thought it doesn't get any worse than rabid anti-vaccinationists. I was wrong. You're much worse.

ETA: I did not read the part where it says that you vaccinated your kids and I apologize. The point still stands that you're OK with that kind of behavior, knowing that vaccines work. That still blows my mind.

 

[Explorer]

For me, I believe in a natural approach to my children's health to some degree. For example I have never given my children amoxicillin. My kids are never sick. When I say NEVER I mean never except for about 2 years with my oldest. My 17 year old has had maybe 2 colds in his lifetime, those are before I stopped giving him amoxicillin. After that all colds stopped. AND RELAX, I know antibiotics are different than vaccines.

Just for the record, and you may want to remind your friends this as well, Amoxicillin will have no effect on the prevention of colds and flu whatsoever. Anti-biotics are ineffective against viruses. They are used only if there are bacterial infections resulting from viral infections already contracted. The routine use of anti-biotics as I am sure you know, is dangerously counter productive, as bacteria will rapidly evolve into resistant strains as a consequence, and lead to the downgrading their future efficacy against infections where they should have an effect.

The contraction of colds and flu infection, is a complex mechanism. Most of us have had long periods without contracting a cold or flu virus, and at other times can contract several colds back to back over a single winter. Infection depends on so many variables of lifestyles, contact with others, and perhaps genetical pre-dispositions, that it is virtually impossible to use anecdotal evidence as a definitive basis to make medical choices for personal and family health matters.

I say trust the science, it will get it right most times and certainly more often than you will.

 

[Mojo]

For me, I believe in a natural approach to my children's health to some degree. For example I have never given my children amoxicillin. My kids are never sick. When I say NEVER I mean never except for about 2 years with my oldest. My 17 year old has had maybe 2 colds in his lifetime, those are before I stopped giving him amoxicillin. After that all colds stopped. AND RELAX, I know antibiotics are different than vaccines.

But do you know that viruses are different from bacteria? Apparently not.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Amoxicillian is an antibiotic that has to be subscribed by a doctor. The only way they should be taking it is if they were actually ill, and saw a doctor. You're not supposed to take it as a preventative measure.

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

truthat:
Have you considered that your sons were free of illnesses because the children around them had been vaccinated? My sons had measles when they were 7 and 5 and they recovered, but some of their contemporaries were left with problems as a result of the disease.

I do not have the flu jab, not because I'm against it, but I am lucky enough not to get colds, coughs and flu. I am old, however, and might well have to start having it if that is the sensible thing to do.

 

[Mojo]

Every time I talk to her about vaccines, she tells me stories about how vaccines are at best worthless and at worst fatal - that the incidence of disease goes down due to public sanitation improvements, not vaccination campaigns. She's read a lot of stuff and tells me about all the anti-vac stuff she's read, but it's always a, "I read a (book / report / study / article) by this (guy / doctor / magazine / health group / researcher) that shows vaccines (cause autism / induce fits of paralysis / injure the child / kill the child / other bad stuff)."

Yes, they can cause "bad stuff", but the risk of the vaccine is less than the risk of the disease. Everything carries some risk. The problem is that the risk of the disease is not immediate. Would she have any problem with the kids having a tetanus shot after injuring themselves?

Or to use an analogy: stepping over a railway track carries the risk that you might trip over and break a leg or your neck. But nobody would hesitate to step out of the way of an oncoming train.

 

[sophia8]

Why would you introduce a virus into a person's body when the person's body already has a natural defense mechanism designed to fight the virus?

You might want to read up on how vaccines work.

 

[Mojo]

For me, I believe in a natural approach to my children's health to some degree. For example I have never given my children amoxicillin. My kids are never sick. When I say NEVER I mean never except for about 2 years with my oldest. My 17 year old has had maybe 2 colds in his lifetime, those are before I stopped giving him amoxicillin. After that all colds stopped. AND RELAX, I know antibiotics are different than vaccines.

My attitude is that the body is a machine designed (not by a creator so don't go off the deep end there) to fight illness. If you have a strong immune system, adding to that system just throws it off.

This is my stupid uneducated belief. So far it has worked perfectly. I also don't go to the doctor and rarely take my kids.

Your kids are never sick and you don't take them to the doctor or treat them for infections? That's some seriously muddled thinking. You have cause and effect the wrong way round.

 

[sophia8]

jamesbuhls: Has any member of either of your families researched into the family history - you know, digging out birth and death records and so on? If so, you could try borrowing that research and showing your wife how many children living the "natural life" without benefit of modern medicine and vaccinations, died before they had a chance to grow up.

 

[truethat]

But do you know that viruses are different from bacteria? Apparently not.

Uh yes which is why I noted that in my comments

Your kids are never sick and you don't take them to the doctor or treat them for infections? That's some seriously muddled thinking. You have cause and effect the wrong way round.

I guess I'm not explaining myself well. When my kids have an illness coming on their own immune system heals it.

It seems to me that by depending on an outside source of healing, over time you weaken your own immune system to the point that it doesn't work the way it should.

Thus, you keep using amoxicillin and you don't develop a strong immune system on your own.

This may have changed but years ago whenever a mom I knew went to the doctor because her child was sick, the doctor would write up a prescription for amoxicillin. One of the reasons I stopped giving it to my kids is because if the child does not take the entire dosage, it can actually have an adverse effect on their health and make it more difficult to self recover from an illness. Little kids tend to spit out medicine so I had no way of knowing if they were getting a proper dosage. I thought it was irresponsible to continue giving it to them when they weren't taking the whole dosage. Once I stopped I noticed that they also stopped (or actually he at that point) getting sick.

So perhaps in saying that they "never get sick" is the wrong way of putting it. My kids never show outward signs of being sick, I believe if something comes at them, their own immune system is strong enough to prevent a serious illness.

I'm sure someone will say that's a wacky old wives way of thinking, but I do think there is science and medicine to back it up.

The reason I'm pointing this out, is that even if you came at me with all these statistics and evidence in papers etc, my experience is proven to me by........well my reality and my experience. I'm not suggesting that everyone else follow my lead. It's your child, you do what you think is best. I'm doing what I think is best for three children. That's it. And so far so good. I also think most doctors would agree that antibiotics were over prescribed years ago and the child should only take them when they are very much needed for fighting infections. Not just so mom will feel like she has some "medicine" to give her child.

I do believe that this is something very important to keep in mind when trying to convince someone about the benefits of vaccines. I brought this up to point out how I for me have one set of "logic" that I use in my own personal life. And I'm sure the OP's wife does as well.

So it is important for him to get at "her personal reality" rather than just responding with a ton of statistics and evidence. As you can see she's got plenty of her own to come back at with.


I do think asking her about her personal family history is a fantastic idea. Because then it shows her, her own personal likelihood for needing the vaccines.

The poster above also said

vaccines do have risks. Low risks. Diseases have risks. Big risks.

I think this is the key to getting her to at least understand. That's a great angle and her personal family history is also a good angle. IMO

 

[Lamuella]

I kinda think everyone but me should get the vaccine

then you're a selfish, contemptible freeloader coasting by on herd immunity.

 

[truethat]

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

truthat:
Have you considered that your sons were free of illnesses because the children around them had been vaccinated? My sons had measles when they were 7 and 5 and they recovered, but some of their contemporaries were left with problems as a result of the disease.

I do not have the flu jab, not because I'm against it, but I am lucky enough not to get colds, coughs and flu. I am old, however, and might well have to start having it if that is the sensible thing to do.

I have had my kids vaccinated, but if you had read my posts you would see I pointed out the same thing.

Thus for the OPs wife she's probably in the same boat which is something to consider. If the OP is nervous about the health of his child, it is important to consider that the likelihood of contracting one of these illnesses WILL BE next to nil, since everyone around him is likely to have had the vaccination.

If this is the reality then it really is not that irresponsible of his wife not to get her child vaccinated. She's probably not concerned about numbers, she's probably scared for her own baby.

Also I'm not sure but I don't think you can vaccinate for the common flu and I know there is no vaccination for the common cold.

It is my belief that doctors overprescribed antibiotics years ago and because of this many children have weak immune systems because they didn't have a chance to build up a strong one.

 

[truethat]

then you're a selfish, contemptible freeloader coasting by on herd immunity.

Yes, again, did you read my post?


Of course it is selfish and freeloading etc coasting on herd immunity. But is it really contemptible? That's what I'm saying.

If the OP's wife knows her child is able to "coast on herd immunity' on the one hand you might say she's selfish and contemptible, but I'm sure she's not going to give a whit what a person on the internet thinks of her when she's worrying and afraid of the possible problems associated with vaccines, especially if she's read all this "fear mongering" etc.

But frankly she's playing the safest hand she has. You might want to get pissed off about it, but really she's being very smart about it. Even though people want to rag and guilt people into the corner it doesn't change the FACT that since most people are getting vaccinated her child is very much protected by herd immunity. Dem's the facts.