How the Anti-Vaxxers Are Winning

CDC has fairly good, neutral, quantitative information about potential side effects from most vaccines:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

In general, I've found that a very useful heuristic for evaluating the trustworthiness of a claim is to take the inverse of the amount of fear & outrage generated by it. So if everybody is screaming in very shrill tones about how outrageous some conspiracy being perpetrated on the American people is, it's probably false. If there's indignant recitation of facts & circumstantial evidence, it may be true but likely isn't all that important. If nobody is talking about it except for a few well-qualified voices, you should be scared.

So applying this to a few issues of the day - "vaccines cause autism" = false (this has already been established, the guy who published the original story admitted to falsifying data and lost his medical license over it). Pizzagate = false. Trump being the next Hitler is probably false. Clinton e-mail scandal = true, but inconsequential. Radical Islamic terrorism = terrible for folks in Syria, but inconsequential for most Westerners. Trump administration ties with Russians = probably true, also inconsequential. Global warming = should be moderately concerned, but likely not the biggest pending environmental calamity. That drunk driver you don't know about = will probably do you in. Either that or a constant diet of more calories in than calories out.

If they want to advocate vaccines, list the side effects of the vaccines (and how common they are), then list the side effects of getting measles (and how contagious it is).

During the vaccine "debates" it is very evident that discussion about the diseases that you're vaccinating against aren't readily discussed or available. If you pick up a leaflet at your pediatrician's about the MMR, it doesn't say what a measles infection is like, just talks endlessly about the vaccine.

So we're having the wrong debate "Vaccines safe or unsafe" instead of "Vaccine Vs. measles." That's why people think skipping vaccines is the "safer" option because they don't grasp what it is they're vaccinating against.

I got my daughter all of her vaccines on schedule. My biggest concern wasn't the vaccines, it was her getting freaking measles before she was old enough for her first MMR shot (at 12 months); there was a big outbreak at Disneyland in that period too.

Read about the former UK Doctor (found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 and struck off the Medical Register) that started it all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

There were a lot of studies trying to prove or repeat his "discoveries" only to confirm that he faked the results for the personal gain. But the bad media coverage of the affair and the small number of people who actually profited from the scare got us to where we are today. And of course, exactly the success of vaccination allows the existence of "antis."

I think that's because that encourages people to assess the issue for their children, but really vaccines aren't just for your kid, they provide herd immunity that saves the lives of newborns, the immunocompromised like children on chemo, etc. Also people forget the horror of life before vaccines for things like polio.

Did you know that measles weakens the immune system years after infection? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6235/694

Based on what scientific fact do you state "there is no safe level of aluminum for a baby?" We all, including babies, contain aluminum. That's the problem: i can't agree to "there's stuff in there that should not be" based on an opinion.

If you are injured by a vaccine you can't sue the manufacturer, you have to go though the Vaccine Court. Meanwhile the vaccines themselves can enumerate some hideous side effects.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/306554223/Diphtheria-and-Tetanus-...

No most people do not think they are "somewhat safe". Who do you know that has been injured by a vaccine? Any family? Friends? Friends of Friends? Why are you afraid of something you don't even have anecdotal evidence for?

There's no such thing as "pro-vaxxers".

Please, don't treat your audience as if we were stupid. This is the anti-vaxxer script...

Whether or not an individual has a right to not be vaccinated is really the question at stake here. AFAIK we don't yet have a direct SCOTUS decision on this and the default is that individuals can't be compelled to undergo procedures. That's not an argument either way, I'm just summarizing my understanding of the state of the world today. The discussion in this thread, at least my comments, are entirely about what I think the rights should be. I think it's very likely that we'll see a SCOTUS case in the near future about just this issue since we're getting close to a breaking point. My argument is that we're going to have a number of nasty things to contend with once we go down the road of forcing medical procedures for societal goods. As I mentioned else where in this thread there was a time when SCOTUS ruled that forced sterilization could be used to implement eugenics. [0] That's the type of thing I think we'd be opening ourselves up to by not respecting people's right to decline procedures.

To draw another parallel that may resonate with the HN crowd. The argument that decided Roe V. Wade was that a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment implies a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I can't see any way that argument is going to hold up in a world where a right to privacy doesn't also imply a right to choose whether or not to be vaccinated.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

"Most contagious" is accurate.

"Most lethal" is accurate if you're talking total deaths, not death rate, and if you assume the non-existence of vaccines. Pre-vaccination, roughly 7-8m children died every year from measles. By comparison, HIV currently kills about 1.1m, TB kills 1.5m, and malaria kills about 438k. This is an admittedly misleading definition of "most lethal", though, because it incorporates its contagiousness as a factor and assumes no vaccines and developing-world conditions. In the developed world, the death rate from measles is only about 0.2%, which is comparable with some of the more virulent influenza strains, but still an order of magnitude less than the 1918 flu pandemic.

> The percentage of people that die from measles is extremely low

Only because most of the children are vaccinated!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles

"It causes the most vaccine-preventable deaths of any disease."

"In 1980, the disease was estimated to have caused 2.6 million deaths per year."

It would be an unbelievably cruel experiment, but if "anti-vaxxers" would win in the US and force it on everybody, in about, let's say, a decade there would been enough children deaths (it's 2 from every 1000 infected!) to prove them wrong.

As long as the most of children are vaccinated, it's the vaccinated ones who protect those of "anti."

I tracked down a stat, "Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% of the cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992. As with other complications of measles, the risk of death is highest among young children and adults. Pneumonia accounts for about 60% of deaths. The most common causes of death are pneumonia in children and acute encephalitis in adults."

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

Maybe they mean lethal in absolute but not relative numbers?

I had an adult co-worker who had never been vaccinated for measles and had contracted it as an adult. He had to take expensive eye-drops regularly for the rest of his life, or he will go blind. He grew up in Utah.

Those are two separate questions: (1) what is the leading cause of death and (2) which disease is most deadly and/or transmissible.

If the author of this opinion piece is correct, it could well be that vaccination is keeping the most deadly disease from causing the most deaths.

Another way this could happen would be if measles killed people so fast they couldn't infect others, although I've never heard anyone make this claim.

Although I don't think the argument is compelling, it is a great question: is there some other reason that measles isn't killing as many people as it used, other than vaccination? To answer that question, we do need scientific research not logic.

Measles itself likely won't kill many people. Hoever, measles can turn into subacute sclerosing panencephalitis later in life, which is very lethal.

Yet its the leading cause of death among children? How do we reconcile that with ' extremely low '

Possibly, I think the anti-vaxxer movement has more to do with a distrust of authority, particularly scientific authority, than it has to do with an actual fear of autism. If / when a measles outbreak happens there's still a question if people will be willing to accept medical science as an answer to the problem or if it'll be cast again as the villain. People are starting to distrust science, and there's no guarantee that scary diseases will change that, even if it seems to us here on HN as if it should.

True, but their actions aren't isolated to themselves, so I'd rather see disease rates not increase. Enough exposure can still infect vaccinated people, and we end up needing to pay for unvaccinated people when they get sick.

If unvaccinated people could be easily avoided and economically separated, they I'd totally be fine with them choosing to put themselves in danger.

I predict church donations and anti-minority violence going up rather than vaccination rates. Them gays brought the ire of god upon this nation, and killed my poor baby!

I'd expect the schedules to change (improve) over time. So what's the point you're trying to make?

Not really, they aren't necessarily far on either side. They arexamples of uniformed opinions, one of which is predominant on the left and one on the right (though with a sizable left component), but lots of the people with those opinions are otherwise moderate members of the right or left. Extremism and ignorance may correlate (or not), but at a minimum they are distinct issues.

I was under the impression anti-vaccination and anti-GMO attitudes were more common among liberals than conservatives (in the U.S. at least).

As they benefit from the largely immune population they endanger and munch of their drought-resistant corn.

There are those who cannot take vaccinations due to medical conditions and there are those who opt-out from vaccinations due to beliefs. Guess who suffers damage for no fault of their own ( not blaming the children of the parents who are making the choice ).

Some people are unable to get a vaccine, largely if you are immunocompromised (new born, AIDS, extreme other sickness, immunosuppressors etc). By having a large portion of the population not able to transmit the disease you have herd immunity that protects those that can't get it.

You also reduce the load & cost to our healthcare system.

You're missing the "herd effect". There are cases where children are too young or have another health issue that prevents them from being vaccinated. These children rely on the greater population to be vaccinated and to help decrease their chances of becoming infected.

Some who are vaccinated will still contract the disease. Some cannot be safely vaccinated because of preexisting medical conditions. For both groups, herd immunity provides additional protection; herd immunity is frustrated by those who choose to not vaccinate.

It's still a public health risk and a serious one if left unchecked.

Well-meaning but ill informed parents are making this decision for their children though.

And it's a problem when people are getting themselves sick because of misinformation.

vaccines are not perfect. Thus, some people who have the vaccine could get the illness. We rely on "herd immunity" to protect those people.

Also, some people are unable to take the vaccine, and again we rely on herd immunity to protect those people.

By not vaccinating their children anti-vaxxers are not just risking the health of their own children but are risking the health of the wider community.

I can understand the anger, it's quite horrifying that diseases we thought were eradicated are making a comeback. On the other hand I'm also horrified by the idea of shipping people off to Alaska for refusing to submit to a medical procedure. That's a very dangerous precedent that could be applied in all sorts of heinous ways.

It's definitely irrational, although "stupid"? Not sure. I've seen fairly intelligent people falling victims to such delusions.

Kid is born. You rejoice. Kid develops autism. You're devastated. Doc tells you it might be genetic, partially. The rational part of your brain goes "genes, mutations, alleles, etc". The irrational part of your brain goes "you mean my man-juice was bad and spoiled? how dare you? I am a real man and I'll see you in hell!"

So at that point it depends on which part of your brain wins. Is it the part that gave us Einstein or Plato? Or is it the part that we're sharing with pigs and jackals?

I think this model explains a lot of completely irrational things bouncing around the world these days.

>They should all be quarantined on some remote island off the coast of Alaska.

Close. Seems like they are self-segregating in Seattle.

http://kuow.org/post/seattle-kids-have-lower-polio-vaccinati...

Maybe they're not stupid, though? I think they just think they can have the benefits of herd immunity without their own kids having to go through vaccination (which does entail some discomfort and risk). I suspect they're probably mostly right.

Technically, those already immune will survive...

Maybe Australia?

>"Many people are going to suffer horribly, measels is no fun, and many will die because of these stupid, stupid anti-vaxxers."

Actually it has been expected for quite some time that there should be a gigantic measles epidemic:

>"The second scenario represents the impact of a vaccination programme that reaches high levels of coverage (85% of all new-borns) which are, nevertheless, not high enough to lead to eradication of the agent. However, for the first 15 years after the introduction of vaccination, it appears as if eradication has been achieved, there are no infections. Then, suddenly, a new epidemic appears as if from nowhere. This is an illustration of a phenomenon known as the ‘honeymoon period’. This is the period of very low incidence that immediately follows the introduction of a non-eradicating mass vaccination policy. This happens because susceptible individuals accumulate much more slowly in a vaccinated community. Such patterns were predicted using mathematical models in the 1980s6 and have since been observed in communities in Asia, Africa and South America7. Honeymoon periods are only predicted to occur when the newly introduced vaccination programme has coverage close to the eradication threshold." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12176860

The reason is that they underestimated the infectiousness of measles (via airborne routes) when first implementing the vaccination policy. Vaccine effectiveness is not high enough to eradicate the virus, thus we should see a honeymoon period followed by a very large epidemic:

>"The Center for Disease Control (CDC) led in mounting the program with a formal paper at the American Public Health Association annual meeting in Miami in the fall of 1966. Two colleagues and I wrote the “official statement” which outlined in detail unqualified statements about the epidemiology of measles and made an unqualified prediction. My third position in the authorship of this paper did not adequately reflect my contribution to the work.14 I will make but two quotes: 1. “The infection spreads by direct contact from person to person, and by the airborne route among susceptibles congregated in enclosed spaces.” (Obviously the ideas of Perkins and Wells had penetrated my consciousness but not sufficiently to influence my judgment). 2. “Effective use of (measles) vaccines during the coming winter and spring should insure the eradication of measles from the United States in 1967.” Such was my faith in the broad acceptance of the vaccine by the public and the health professions and in the infallibility of herd immunity.

The results of this prediction are well known. The reported incidence of the disease dropped from a level of 400,000-500,000 cases a year during 1960-1964, to 250,000 in 1965 and 200,000 in 1966. This clearly reflected the use of the early-type vaccines in private practice. Incidence further dropped to 50,000 in 1967 and to 25,000 in 1968 but since then has continued a fluctuating cou~s e .T’~he variability can be related to the degree of the total national effort, and the availability of federal funds to defray vaccine costs. Eradication remains elusive although intensification of effort during the past 12 months appears to have brought incidence to a lower point, near 12,000 cases.

There are many reasons and explanations for this rather egregious blunder in prediction. The simple truth is that the prediction was based on confidence in the Reed-Frost epidemic theory, in the applicability of herd immunity on a general basis, and that measles cases were uniformly infectious. I am sure I extended the teachings of my preceptors beyond the limits that they had intended during my student days.

In the relentless light of the well-focussed retrospectiscope, the real failure was our neglect of conducting continuous and sufficiently sophisticated epidemiological field studies of measles. We accepted the doctrines imbued into us as students wikout maintaining the eternal skepticism of the true scientist." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6939399

> 2. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people who are vaccinated anyway?)

No, that's not how it works. A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic.

Here in Victoria, Australia, they have a "no jab, no play" law, which I think is an interesting practical take on this.

The legislation means that if you don't vaccinate your child, you miss out on childcare rebates and can't access licensed daycare (doesn't affect primary school and later, presumably because vaccinated children are less vulnerable by that age, but also I suspect because the law would collide with other legislation related to schools, and uneducated unvaccinated kids would be a terrible outcome :).

https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/Api/downloadmedia/%7B22AA80DA...

I'm actually still not sure how I feel about this. On the face of it, it's a fair, risk based approach (e.g, minimise risk to others) but it also places more pressure on the poor than the rich.

So the pros are innocent people don't up hurt

the cons are "BUT MUH FREEDUMB".

> Plus all the claims of other unhealthy complications of vaccines, some of which are probably true to a degree.

This is the type of thing that gives anti-vaxxers fuel. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt, don't say more research is needed before deciding.

Fine, you can choose not vaccinate your kids. They should be banned from public schools, and pretty much anywhere else. If you don't want to vaccinate them then they should have to live a shitty isolated life, because you sure as hell shouldn't get to make them or others sick with your idiocy.