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

[laca]

Is it not true, that the likelihood of this ONE baby of getting a disease from a kid coming back from Kenya or Romania or India etc is just as likely as this ONE baby contracting an illness from the vaccine itself?

That's complete and utter baloney, just like everything you've said so far. Especially, since the vaccination rates in Romania are above 95%, whereas it's only about 75% in Kenya and even lower in India.

 

[laca]

this is the dramatizing part. The rest is information. But as has been pointed out, many times people arguing the points online resort to drama, instead of just posting the facts. I think it does a great disservice to the cause of vaccinations because it ultimately underminds the objectivity of the medical end of the discussion.

So does calling people selfish ****** etc when discussing using herd immunity etc.


I know it's a highly emotional issue, as well as frustrating I'm sure. But when people start talking like this it sounds agenda driven to me. I can only imagine what it would sound like to the OP's wife.

Agenda? Well, of course. The agenda is to save lives. What's your agenda? You're rambling on spewing inaccuracies left and inconsistencies right, so what's your agenda?

 

[truethat]

That's complete and utter baloney, just like everything you've said so far. Especially, since the vaccination rates in Romania are above 95%, whereas it's only about 75% in Kenya and even lower in India.

I don't think you understood my question. I was referencing the link I posted that says you can't "hide" in the herd. It mentions how people contracted illnesses by being exposed to people who had traveled outside the country and come back with diseases.

I'm not sure why they mentioned these foreign countries, the other poster mentioned people going away to India. It's a common argument that is thrown into the conversation a great deal.


In my opinion it's not that great of a risk that you would be exposed to someone who traveled to a foreign country and contracted a disease for which a vaccine would be necessary and became sick.

Especially a little baby. It's not like they travel around. I suppose they would be more at risk if moms take them to the mall.


But thanks for letting me know the article was wrong about that. Here is where I got the information in case you want to correct anything else.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/you-cant-hide-in-the-herd/

 

[truethat]

Agenda? Well, of course. The agenda is to save lives. What's your agenda? You're rambling on spewing inaccuracies left and inconsistencies right, so what's your agenda?

I'm asking questions. I've been quite clear about that. Agendas to save lives do not require calling people "nutters" or insulting the OP. It's not about calling people names or using scare tactics to try to fear monger people into agreeing with you.

If you base your arguments on science, try to be a little patient because as you are well aware there is a LOT of misinformation out there that is also pushing their agenda.

But if you calmly deal with the facts then the facts should lead the conversation. So should the science and the medicine.


I'm sorry if that seems like an "agenda" to you.

 

[laca]

I don't think you understood my question. I was referencing the link I posted that says you can't "hide" in the herd. It mentions how people contracted illnesses by being exposed to people who had traveled outside the country and come back with diseases.

Yes, I understood the question perfectly. It is insane to think that the risk of getting a disease from someone is comparable with the risk of getting the disease from the vaccine itself. Insane.

If you look at the stats for the USA, they are lower than those for Romania. Romanians should think about getting diseases from Americans, and not vice versa. YMMV.

 

[BrainRotMenacer]

In my opinion it's not that great of a risk that you would be exposed to someone who traveled to a foreign country and contracted a disease for which a vaccine would be necessary and became sick.

isn't saying "In my opinion it's not that great of a risk..." logically equivalent to "In my opinion the risk is very small..."? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but unless you say the risk of getting sick because of a lack of a vaccination is is literally non-existent, you are admitting that the risk is there. Why would anyone what to take this gamble not only with his or her own health, but with his or her children? I am pretty sure the evidence has already been shown more than once in this thread alone that the risk of a single vaccination being dangerous is far less than the risk of getting sick because one does not have a vaccination. Just because of your anecdotal evidence that your children turned out fine does not mean others will. I don't think it takes a professional risk analyst to determine which decision is best.

 

[truethat]

isn't saying "In my opinion it's not that great of a risk..." logically equivalent to "In my opinion the risk is very small..."? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but unless you say the risk of getting sick because of a lack of a vaccination is is literally non-existent, you are admitting that the risk is there. Why would anyone what to take this gamble not only with his or her own health, but with his or her children? I am pretty sure the evidence has already been shown more than once in this thread alone that the risk of a single vaccination being dangerous is far less than the risk of getting sick because one does not have a vaccination. Just because of your anecdotal evidence that your children turned out fine does not mean others will. I don't think it takes a professional risk analyst to determine which decision is best.

Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about which is also why I've been asking questions throughout the whole thread.


I've basically been reiterating things I've heard or read people writing about iimmunizations. (except for the amoxicillin bit, that's mine) But what I'd like to point out is how much vitriol and fear mongering gets put out without any evidence or web links etc. Some people have posted simple answers which have been great. But most have just been annoyed.

It's ok, I think I've learned quite a bit. Although to be perfectly honest, I'm still confused on the herd immunity. If we say we "need herd immunity" to protect people who CANNOT get vaccinated for health reasons, it seems really dumb to suggest this one baby won't benefit from the herd immunity as well. I'm still confused on that.


Also the OP has a spouse who does not want to immunize their child. Any suggestions of ways he could approach the topic might be helpful.

 

[laca]

Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about which is also why I've been asking questions throughout the whole thread.

You do realize the thread is there for all to see, right?

 

[truethat]

Yes, I understood the question perfectly. It is insane to think that the risk of getting a disease from someone is comparable with the risk of getting the disease from the vaccine itself. Insane.

If you look at the stats for the USA, they are lower than those for Romania. Romanians should think about getting diseases from Americans, and not vice versa. YMMV.

I still don't think you understand what I'm asking. I'm not debating you I just think we are having two different conversations.


Put more simply


What are the odds of a baby contrzcting an illness or having an adverse side effect from a vaccine?


What are the odds of a baby contracting an illness from an immigrant anywhere around the world or from someone IN the community based on the area in which the OP person lives?


See in the article it seemed confusing. It says for example that

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/you-cant-hide-in-the-herd/

A group from Kaiser Permanente of Colorado has attempted to help put a number on that increased risk. Within the last year they have provided two matched case-control studies that quantify the magnitude of the risk children incur because of vaccine refusal.

Their first study found that the act of refusing to vaccinate against pertussis (whooping cough) placed children at a 23 times greater risk of contracting pertussis. That’s a 23 fold-increased risk of a disease that, in children under 12 months of age from 2000-2004 in the US caused 62.8% to require hospitalization, 55.8% to have apnea, pneumonia in 12.7%, and death in 0.8%.

Their second study, published just this month and following the same format as the first, focused instead on the risk of varicella (chickenpox) infection after vaccine refusal. Here they identified an 8.6-fold increased risk of infection with a disease that as recently as 1995 (when the vaccine was released), tallied 3,000,000 infections, 10,000 hospitalizations, 4,000 cases of pneumonia, 600 cases of encephalitis and 100 deaths per year.

But to me that's like me adding up all the numbers of people who had adverse effects to taking immunizations and presenting them as evidence that vaccines are very dangerous. I mean you've already said the article is misleading. So maybe another article would be better.

The bolded for example. The lack of immunization caused 62.8% of the children to require hospitalization.

Well that's a bit weird of a statistic if you think about it. I would wager, THOUGH I AM PREPARED TO BE PROVEN WRONG, that most of those children were "hospitalized' because part of the reason they were not immunized is that they were children of illegal immigrants who often don't have access to proper prenatal and pediatric care when their children are little. And so they often use the hospital emergency rooms as their Primary Care Physician and go when they are actually seriously sick.

(And I'm totally pro immigrant so let's not derail there)


It seems like these are suspect statements. So I'd like to see some more information that compares the number of children who use the herd immunity compared to the humber of children who get sick from vaccines.

And using the herd doesn't mean you live in a cult or are Amish etc. But someone who prefers holistic healing and lives among regular people .

 

[BrainRotMenacer]

Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about which is also why I've been asking questions throughout the whole thread.

I hope my post did not come off as accusatory or hostile (your response does not indicate that you feel this way, but there is a degree of ambiguity that makes me believe it could be the case). While I was responding directly to something you said, it was intended as a general response, since the OP's wife most likely also understands a small risk is still a risk. The basic probability is that an adverse reaction to a vaccination or getting a disease that would be prevented by the vaccination are unlikely. But a bad vaccination is far less likely than contracting a disease, and contracting a disease is exceedingly more dangerous, and perhaps even fatal.

I am not a parent so I cannot relate to what it's like to have a child and make life decisions for him or her, but if I project myself into the position of being a parent I really can't make an argument against vaccinating my child.

 

[Estellea]

It's ok, I think I've learned quite a bit. Although to be perfectly honest, I'm still confused on the herd immunity. If we say we "need herd immunity" to protect people who CANNOT get vaccinated for health reasons, it seems really dumb to suggest this one baby won't benefit from the herd immunity as well. I'm still confused on that.

Herd immunity isn't simply x% vaccination rate will protect those that aren't; it's not that simple and many factors are taken in consideration to determine what is needed to interrupt and sustain transmission of a disease. That said, it isn't just this one baby, it's the same sense of entitlement that many parents have about their many babies and each think they are the only ones doing it or low enough in number to be able to rely upon herd immunity. But, that is not the case is it?

Este

 

[Salerio]

Are you guys normally so cleaved to your own ideas that you don't understand someone who is actually willing to look at both sides of an argument?

Are you a creationist? Teach the controversy!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Are you a creationist? Teach the controversy!

Leave her alone, she's "Just Asking Questions"...

 

[pgwenthold]

Sometimes the medical establishment can be wrong about the actual severity versus the anticipated severity.
.
.
.
And it could be argued that the swine flu pandemic was actually avoided due to the agressive immunization program (although I am uncertain as to the conclusive validity of such a statement).

Yes and no, I think.

The problem is, whereas the "medical establishment" was certainly wrong about the anticipated severity of the H1N1 epidemic in some respects, it was also very right about other aspects. Moreover, in no way does that make the deniers right about any of it.

The H1N1 epidemic did not materialize because the elderly population had an unforeseen immunity due to their exposure to a related variant back in the 1950s. Consequently, they, being the most susceptible population, didn't have to face it, fortunately. There was no way for anyone to predict that, and none of the objectors to it ever used it as a justification ("We don't need to worry about it because the elderly have immunity").

On the other hand, the H1N1 WAS exceedingly devastating to others in the population, as flus go. Hundreds of pregnant women and children died from it, and that does not happen with the regular flu. The medical establishment was absolutely dead on right on that - this was a very potentially dangerous situation.

The fact that the elderly did not get hit by it is great, but don't think for a second that it vindicates the anti-vaxxers.

 

[truethat]

Herd immunity isn't simply x% vaccination rate will protect those that aren't; it's not that simple and many factors are taken in consideration to determine what is needed to interrupt and sustain transmission of a disease. That said, it isn't just this one baby, it's the same sense of entitlement that many parents have about their many babies and each think they are the only ones doing it or low enough in number to be able to rely upon herd immunity. But, that is not the case is it?

Este

It is just ONE baby. It's one or maybe two as the OP said there is another child involved.

The topic of the thread is HOW DO I TALK TO MY ANTI VAC WIFE ABOUT IT>


(although I'm sure she's going to have a lot more information on the topic than I do because he has pointed this out)


Now for the sake of argument aside from the outrage at the "herd immunity issue" for ALL, as we examine it for JUST THE OP and his situation as I have said NUMEROUS times, he could for a while sort of coast on the herd immunity and he tries to attempt to convince her.

Breaking down the vaccines into different groups I think is important in order to change his tact with her.

So far he seems to be lumping it together and she comes back at him with a ton of data.

He's also pointed out that she is not a bad or dumb person. She is just utterly convinced that vaccines are harmful.


As I have posted, IN MY OPINION>>>>>>>>>>>it is easy for me to see why someone would be confused.

One is that there is a lot of hostility when you question the topic because ^^exhibit ABCD people think you are faking it and are really anti vax.

Two is that direct questions are rarely answered.

Three is that although this can have far reaching ramifications she's really only concerned about her child.


The simple thing to do to me would be to demonstrate that your child is far more likely to suffer from the side effects of the illness because they have not gotten a vaccine, than they are likely to suffer from the side effects of the vaccine.


So if someone could just provide that, I think it would be helpful. I'm not good at understanding statistics. (As you may have noticed)

 

[Stellafane]

If all else fails, try singing the following:

Pop Goes the Measles
When I was back in nursery school
A doctor with a needle
Jabbed me once, and what do you know?
Stop went the measles.
But Jenny on the Oprah show
Loves that Wakefield weasel,
So now there’s many kids at risk.
Pop goes the measles.

I fear that taking vaccine advice
From Ace Ventura’s squeeze’ll
Spread the pox all over the land.
Pop goes the measles.
I’m sure she’d hot in centerfolds
Or on some artist’s easel,
But medicine? Give me a break!
Pop goes the measles.

I think it’s time for sense to prevail.
Derail this loco diesel.
The epidemic’s out of control.
Pop goes the measles.
So take to heart these words I sing
(Although I’m not the Beatles)
It’s still the best advice you’ll get:
Stop those damn measles.

 

[BrainRotMenacer]

I am woefully unfamiliar with the history of the anti-vaccination movement, but I recall Andrew Wakefield being a very key figure in the movement, perhaps even the primary catalyst of the entire crusade. It has been proven that his research was largely falsified and has therefore been thoroughly discredited, but apparently that didn't help stop this ridiculous movement. It is for this reason that I believe the OP's wife is a lost cause regarding immunization.

I would suggest asking her if there is any evidence is contrary to her beliefs that would make her understand vaccinations are important, but I think I know what the answer would be. I don't think critical thinking is possible in this scenario.

 

[truethat]

You know I was bored today and may have played someone's dupe. I see our Dear Mr. JamesBuhls is an online psychic and reiki master. Since reiski is one of the groups that seem not to like modern medical science and prefers holistic health (that and your natal chart readings must come in handy for your pregnant wife) I'm curious how you reconcile all this with your strong ideas about how important vaccinations must be?

Hm.

 

[Estellea]

It is just ONE baby. It's one or maybe two as the OP said there is another child involved.

And my point is is that it really isn't one baby, or two; they don't exist in a vacuum. Do mum and dad go to work? Do they go to the market, playgroup, doctor or naturopath's (even more worrisome) office? Did you see my post about six, yes six children infected with measles in a doctor's waiting room? Most of them thought they could ride on herd immunity too and wouldn't get infected too.

The topic of the thread is HOW DO I TALK TO MY ANTI VAC WIFE ABOUT IT>

(although I'm sure she's going to have a lot more information on the topic than I do because he has pointed this out)

And the problem is what the quality and accuracy of that information is. And also her resistance to what the actual facts are as they pertain to her baby.

Now for the sake of argument aside from the outrage at the "herd immunity issue" for ALL, as we examine it for JUST THE OP and his situation as I have said NUMEROUS times, he could for a while sort of coast on the herd immunity and he tries to attempt to convince her.

Yes he can, but it isn't a given that his child will actually be protected.

Breaking down the vaccines into different groups I think is important in order to change his tact with her.

Gah, this is meaningless. Could you try and state this another way that can be addressed? I really would like to you know.

So far he seems to be lumping it together and she comes back at him with a ton of data.

And he will never prevail in that kind of pissing contest because I guarantee that she absolutely will not let him "inject toxins into her untainted child". No amount of sane counter points will convince her.

Two is that direct questions are rarely answered.

Ask a direct question then.

Three is that although this can have far reaching ramifications she's really only concerned about her child.

I get that, but her child is not the only one in existence.

The simple thing to do to me would be to demonstrate that your child is far more likely to suffer from the side effects of the illness because they have not gotten a vaccine, than they are likely to suffer from the side effects of the vaccine.


So if someone could just provide that, I think it would be helpful. I'm not good at understanding statistics. (As you may have noticed)

I can do that but you have to be specific, as I stated in an earlier post.

Este

 

[truethat]

Well I think I've got it and as I said I have vaccinated my kids. But as dumb as I felt in this thread I feel even dumber now.

Oh well, hopefully we helped enlighten a few lurkers.