Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

This is a huge deal.

A big issue the anti-vaccine movement latched onto was "they contain mercury!". Technically true- a compound used as a preservative has some mercury molecules in it. Never mind that it wasn't elemental mercury and was perfectly safe to ingest, or that the quantity of mercury was less than is in most fish-based diets.

The end result was a lot of third world countries naively banning vaccines containing mercury- meaning that all these vaccines no longer had preservatives that let them survive longer outside of refrigeration. It's hard to bring "must stay refrigerated" anything into rural areas in less developed parts of the world (or at least, it's a lot more expensive to do it). End result: fewer people vaccinated, and more preventable deaths, higher costs per person saved.

This kind of breakthrough, if applicable more widely, could save millions (of both lives and dollars).

View on HN

I'm completely sure the anti-vaxxers will find a way to scaremonger against this too. Alas, that movement is the result of ideological and sociological forces that are not going away. The only possibility is to suppress them lawfully and even that won't finish them off.

> The only possibility is to suppress them lawfully and even that won't finish them off.

Government censorship always works to suppress only bad ideas and is never used to preserve power /s

Actually, government censorship was not one of the means I was thinking of. Too crude. I was merely thinking of kicking them off platforms, (justified) demonization of the movement, 'us'-'them' polarization to make even person wanting to fit in know what not to do, and other legal means.

All of this is still crude - just less crude then outright censhorship - because the deep roots of the movement are too difficult to root out. Ultimately, this movement is suited to the West in our age. First, we demonize Big Everything (sometimes even with reason). Second, most of the people who reject vaccines ultimately prefer a dead child (even someone else's) over an autistic child. This is also pushed hard in our culture. Third, we have this worship of natural everything, even though nature is full of poisons.

Deplatforming will only work in the short term. Eventually you deplatfom large enough populations that they either create their own platforms or someone sees a business opportunity in providing one for them. Except now on the platforms designed to cater just to them, your voice will be censored just as you gleefully censored their voice. Unless you want to go full authoritarian the trend of deplatforming anything you disapprove of will eventually lead to worse outcomes.

I do not even dream of 'deplatforming anything [I] disapprove of'. But your reply made me think again why I consider going to all these lengths with regards to anti-vax.

Well, it seems like child abuse to me, and it's not even containable - the effects are not limited to their family, but can effect mine as well* . Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here. On political matters there are votes and if my side loses, that's the way it is. Here, the very fact such a movement exists (even if the vast majority is against it and votes against it) puts some immunocompromised people at risk.

* There are religious sects that agree to basically live apart of society - so it wouldn't matter that much to us what they do - but I don't think that's a possible resolution to this issue, not for most anti-vaxxers.

> Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here

Typically, the resolution is some form of mandating that kids get vaccinated.

That could happen too, at least in some states (in others it may be illegal).

However, given that these parents believe that puts their child and themselves at risk, they'd go far to stop it, up to faking vaccinations - at which point any outbreak would "prove" the vaccines are ineffective. So I don't think there's a way of avoiding a confrontation with the movement itself.

That's only true if they continue growing reliably after being deplatformed. There's no reason why that should necessarily be true.

I feel like there a tendency to believe that, since censorship is bad, censorship must also be completely ineffective, and we tell stories like "deplatforming is useless" to reinforce that. But I don't think that's a realistic approach. Censorship can and does work, in the right circumstances. Chinese millennials may know that something happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989, but they're fuzzy on the details and inclined to downplay it and keep quiet about it. That's censorship working as intended. Assuming your enemies are incompetent doesn't accomplish anything but a false sense of security.

You can make that same absolutist argument against, say, the use of police. After all, if we let the government hire people with guns to shoot and kill citizens, where will this slippery slope lead us to?

I am quite capable of telling the difference between tyranny, and basic public safety, and I think you are too. Vaccination in 2019 is about as clear-cut a line as I can think of.

There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very first sentence in our bill of rights. At least that's my opinion, which maybe makes me an "absolutist" in your terms.

Besides, government censorship is not some esoteric political theory, indeed it's the natural inclination of those in power, and there's a long history of states using it to the detriment of their citizens -- but maybe they just haven't tried "real" censorship?

The bill of rights was written long before germ theory, and the courts have so far proven incapable of understanding the problem of probabilistic risks with the standard of "clear and present danger".

And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

For your second point: there's a long history of states using police to the detriment of their citizens (And, in my opinion, they continue to do so, even to this day), so we should abolish the institution tomorrow. How's that for an esoteric theory? For some reason, though, the courts aren't super keen on that line of reasoning...

I think that people who invent and promulgate exceptions to freedom of speech are contributing to a very dangerous problem and should be forcefully stopped by the police. I've tried arguing, but they remain unconvinced - leaving force as the only option.

> There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very first sentence in our bill of rights. At least that's my opinion, which maybe makes me an "absolutist" in your terms.

Yes, lack of herd immunity causing an outbreak certainly does meet the "clear and present danger".

You don't get to build whatever you want precisely because it might harm somebody else--we have building codes.

You don't get to skip vaccination precisely because an outbreak WILL harm somebody else.

Vaccinations were used as the basis of the tuakeegee syphilis experiments. They were also used as part of a cia spying operation in Pakistan.

You really think this sort of thing is apolitical, that the government can be trusted here?

You realize that you also might be taking up a portion based on sociological and ideological forces that are driven by corporate profits.

The primary question that I like to ask people who make statements like this is as follows: "What is your mental model of how vaccines get approved and pushed to market?"

Even money says that you have a model that looks like "drugs" where vaccines are biologics, and treated completely differently.

Then I like to ask "If you did get sick from a vaccine what could you do". In the US you can't sue, you end up in a special vaccine court. HN in general opposes things that have extra-judicial processes attached to them (secret warrant courts, binding arbitration). For me extra judicial has become a "smell" ala code smells that make me look deeper at an issue.

This is the same industry that gave us Martin Shkreli, Aids tainted medicine knowing sold in 3rd world countries, and $600 epipens. The suppression of science that is going to upset the apple cart is a thing. See John Yudkin and pure white and deadly, see suppression of tobacco research, see Barry Marshall and the fact that even after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results.

There are plenty of people out there that are mindlessly "pro vaxx" who have zero understanding. The debate has made me educate myself on the topic. Vaccines are an effective but flawed product, one that needs educated consumers and a hell of a lot of reform.

* Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial". Special courts can very useful, if you get judges which are versed in the subject matter.

* None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. Or vaccines in particular.

* That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though. Big Corporates are bad, supported by Arrogant Science that can sometimes be flawed, therefore something related to them must be Bad too. To fix the unspecific Bad, the area needs some unspecified Reform (reform is always Good of course, and can never be Bad).

> Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial"

One that has no president or case law is. One without the ability to contest (your award) is. The moment that you leave special masters rather than experts before a judge you end up with a very different set of outcomes.

> None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust.

I didn't question the FDA approval process for drugs, or biologics. I just said it is different and you need to approach the situation with a very different mental model. There is good and bad in the process and consumers should be aware of what they are putting into their bodies.

If you want to question the FDA, and on the topic of biologics, then look no further than Chiron corporation. The UK government had to shut down their plant, and the FDA knew what was up. Peoples lives are on the line and a "miscommunication" by the FDA is an unacceptable excuse.

The examples I listed had NOTHING to do with the FDA, and everything to do with the players involved, Doctors and large corporations. History is a good indicator that we have problematic interactions between these groups and science that harms profits or changes long held (and sometimes wrong) beliefs.

> That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though..

I didn't say "big corporations are bad", I didn't say "science was arrogant". Sciences has its problems - reproduction, trusted elders, corporate interests and the ego of humans. I think science is aware of its issues and is the tides are shifting on punishing and replication, money and ego's are harder to solve but the former will do much to address the problem. Again history is a great indicator of how we treat change when money and long held ideology are on the line, it is a place where we should be MORE cautious not less.

* One can contest the vaccine award, and there's a pretty fixed law behind it[0]. Basically, if it's on the adverse list the claim wins automatically. If not, the claimant must show that the harm was done by the vaccine. The result can be appealed to civil courts.

* The FDA did screw up once in 2004 with a flu vaccine - and it was caught in time. I doubt a single miscommunication 15 years ago is representative of the process.

* I stand by my summary. Sure, your original post didn't use the same exact words, but it's pretty typical rhetoric: greedy corporations ("corporate profits", "$600 epipens") and arrogant flawed science ("Barry Marshall.. after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results").

* After all that, you're not really saying what "reform" you have in mind. If history is any guide, the misEducation of the last twenty years did a lot more harm than good.

[0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168

I did not know that the vaccine court was established after an earlier vaccine scare in the UK...

I hope so but I'm reminded of the saying: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

You don't have to reason with the anti-vaxxers, just prevent them from convincing governments of their new justification for banning things. The new vaccines will be legal by default because they don't contain the banned ingredient.

> you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

This is a cute phrase, but too cute to be true.

The real breakthrough would be to move away from needles. I imagine a great many anti-vaxxers would quietly give up their protest if that were to occur.

On that note, there's a few vaccines heading to market in pill form. However many target diseases of the digestive system (like Norovirus[0]). But in general, I do agree that pill stable vaccines would massively subvert the anti-vaxx movement.

[0] https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/09/27/norovirus-vaccine-meets...

You can already get flu vaccines as a nasal spray, I haven't heard of any impact on anti-vax attitudes.

The nasal spray is made from living and weakened virus. The jab is made from dead virus. You're more at risk of complications from the live virus and, as such, it's not recommended for tiny kids or adults over 50.

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/prevention-15/vaccines/f...

Flu vaccines are an interesting one. They're changed each year (in UK, Fluenz Tetra is used primarily) based on a guess at the 4 most likely prevalent strains for the forthcoming season. I don't see how you can hide behind "rigourously tested" "longitudinal scientific observations" and such.

All public vaccination schemes are for populations, but flu vaccination in this form seems much more of a gamble than tried-and-tested vaccines.

AIR one-in-ten getting the vaccine get "flu-like symptoms"; but it's for the population as a whole.

I used to work for Andy Wakefield, so I have a bit of a different perspective on this issue. The important things that aren't in this are MSG, Mercury, and possibly adjuvants like aluminum, because

> Our vaccine candidate is easy to manufacture, extremely stable and elicits a powerful immune response.

Those are what most of the intelligent anti-vaxxers worry about, except for a few people who object to fetal tissue being used in development, which is not an issue here.

I'm sure some folks will get up in arms about this, but it'll be a huge step forwards in many people's minds, and hopefully will be used as a template in the future.

To clarify: I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I do think the testing process isn't rigorous enough, and I have seen absolutely awful medically confirmed reactions firsthand, which gives me a slightly different perspective. Vaccines are good, but I want the reaction rate in non-immunocompromised people to be zero

For those unaware of who Andrew Jeremy is, this is from Wikipedia:

> Andrew Jeremy Wakefield is a discredited British ex-physician who became an anti-vaccine activist. As a gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London, he published a 1998 paper in The Lancet claiming a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism.

>intelligent anti-vaxxers

Oxymoron.

> intelligent anti-vaxxers

No that's an oxymoron if I have ever seen one.

> I used to work for Andy Wakefield

Interesting, what was that like? Did he actually believe all the claims he was making?

Absolute horndog, no scruples, and a complete narcissist. Basically worse than they make him out to be. Del Bigtree is very similar.

The Tommey family (worked with Andy on Vaxxed) are some of the kindest people I've ever met, and I'd like to see them again.

Suzanne Humphries is possibly one of the smartest people I know, and is incredibly well-read. She's a nephrologist who started charting patterns around people getting flu shots followed by sudden kidney failure, well before Andy did his "research". She brought this to the attention of a researcher, and was promptly dismissed. She's not anti-vaccine, but is pro-vaccine-safety, which I appreciate as an intellectually honest position. Out of the whole crowd, she's the person I would listen to. She's a bit like Andrew Yang; she doesn't hold opinions, the data is her opinion.

I'm not sure why this is getting downvotes. I'm answering the question.

> She's not anti-vaccine, but is pro-vaccine-safety

I've never heard of Humphries before your comment. I searched and found a long video of Humphries where she says, at the outset:

>> "never has there been a safe vaccine, never will there be a safe vaccine, and it is not possible to have a safe vaccine." [1]

IMO, a reasonable person would call that an anti-vaccine point of view, don't you think? Calling it pro-vaccine-safety seems disingenuous.

Anyways, I agree with you that she seems well read and she articulates her position in a level-headed manner and I'm even open to her being correct. But her position seems to be very anti-vaccine because she tells us that vaccine safety is "not possible" and that there will never be a safe vaccine.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efto1LpWkKw

Well, if we want to go deep into her body of research we can. She's pro-immunization, but doesn't believe vaccines as we know them are an effective way to do so. The current structure involves harming the body in order to create immunity, and therefore, if no benefit is derived, violates the Hippocratic oath.

I get frustrated with her sometimes, because her ideas are incredibly rational and coherent, but she doesn't understand presentation or how to sell an idea.

I would recommend her book if you want to gain an understanding of the rationalist arguments against modern vaccination:

https://www.amazon.com/Dissolving-Illusions-Disease-Vaccines...

It's controversial thought, but it is enlightening, especially if you want to understand why some "otherwise" smart people believe this nonsense

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Thank you. I appreciate the book reference.

Because I said a wrongspeak.

No problem. Hope you enjoy if you decide to peruse.

Eh. She looks very much like she's just playing to people's fears. If this is the rationalist argument, I wonder what are the irrational arguments.

My early childhood passed in a city where meat was sold on pushcarts and where drinking tap water was an easy way to have an infection. I guess having the unnatural disease matter filled with metals injected into my muscle might have saved me from becoming a statistic.

I don't know how you qualify an intelligent "anti-vaxxer". I've had colleagues, that were otherwise intelligent people, vehemently refuse to listen to the evidence. They let their fear of autism drive their decisions. In doing so, they opened their children, and the communities they live in, to measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella... all of the things we'd nearly eliminated.

Unless the child has allergies to the vaccine, or a compromised immune system, it isn't reasonable to leave the child without vaccination. Intelligent people have more complex ways of rationalizing the decisions they make based on fear. It doesn't make the decision intelligent or wise.

Either way, better vaccines will be a boon to all. Hopefully, it will also ameliorate the fears of some "anti-vaxxers". My own fear is that because irrational decisions are already not based on evidence, these people will be unable to consider or accept new evidence, even when their specific rationalizations have been accounted for.

Meh

The flu vaccine is formulated each year to match the predicted strains expected to cause most human suffering that year. Influenza has a segmented RNA genome that makes it more likely to mutate and change its antigen expression. The flu vaccine saves a significant number of lives each year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Replication https://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/flu-vaccine-saved-lives.htm

The shingles vaccine bolsters immunity towards the chicken pox virus so that even when depressed your immune system has enough T-cells against the virus that it does not reactivate. Shingrex is 97% effective at preventing shingles.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25916341

The flu vaccine is important to get.

* Every year the vaccine is updated to match the new mutation which is why you need to get one every year.

* Some years the vaccine is not fully protective, but it will still reduce the severity and duration. This could mean the difference between life and death for at-risk populations: old, young, immune-comprised.

* If enough people get it, it provides herd immunity for people who can't take it such as babies less than 6 months.

I know someone with a child who has an immune condition who can't get the flu vaccine. The father didn't think he needed to get it because he didn't think the flu was that big of a deal, and it's not for most healthy people. Well he gets the flu, gives it to his son, and the son ends up in the ICU. Thankfully the son survived. The father now always gets the flu shot.

Yeah, that's my problem. Vaccines are oversold, so to speak. Everyone has a story about getting the flu immediately after getting the shot.

My big thing is safety and accountability. Currently, if a vaccine is harmful, the company that makes it has no liability, /and/ there's no control/test testing. The only way they're tested is by giving people the same shot with and without the viral component.

Problem is, saying anything that makes vaccines not sound like unicorn blood makes you one of "them", and you obviously want everyone to die of polio.

People do sometimes get sick with mild symptoms for a day or so after receiving the flu shot, but is nothing compared to the actual flu.

Yeah, last year was the first time I had symptoms from the shot. As someone who actually has had the flu, it felt like the final few days of the real flu, after the fever has broken, the worst is over and you are finally better and on the upswing.

>Yeah, that's my problem. Vaccines are oversold, so to speak. Everyone has a story about getting the flu immediately after getting the shot.

No, it's because the average person has no idea what they are talking about and do primitive correlation.

After a flu shot you can very well feel unwell as your immune system ramps up to eliminate the inactive virus. The real flu is actually nasty. Most people just have colds and never experience full blown flu until they finally do and regret.

The flu is far more common than you're starting though. That the cold is even more so doesn't mean that most people don't know what getting a flu is like.

Do you have specific examples of a vaccine manufacturer causing harm and escaping accountability?

Also, how would you do control testing for vaccines?

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

This exists because of a bill sheltering vaccine manufacturers from all liability.

As for control testing, you give some people a saline solution, others the shot, and others the shot with no virus. Put the issue to rest.

Again, what the heck. I'm answering the question.

Do you have any specific examples? I know why vaccine compensation exists, and it's not to hide wrongdoing.

Wait, why do you need the third group (saline solution) as part of the control?

Here's a list of cases. https://www.mctlaw.com/vaccine-injury/cases/

The saline is to rule out effects from the preservatives and adjuvants used. The viral component of vaccines isn't what anti-vaxxers usually worry about.

Those cases seem to be "had bad reaction, using system", do you have any evidence of wrongdoing that isn't tied to "shit sometimes happens when you vaccinate"?

My understanding, although I am not a doctor, is that it boosts your immunity to the virus itself because they inject you with a active (but very weakened) version of the virus. That way when your immune system is depressed, its response is still much better than it would have been otherwise. More antibodies produced, less chance the dormant virus can reactivate. Really interesting, honestly.

It's more complicated, there are many variants. Some use a live weakened version of the virus/bacteria. Some use a dead versions. Some use only a small part of the surface of the virus/bacteria that is enough to be recognized. (The last is similar to the approach in this vaccine.)

[In some old vaccines, they used a somewhat related similar virus/bacteria that was close enough to make you get the immunity, but not to cause the illness. I'm not sure if this method is used still today.]

I imagined it was more complicated, I was just giving it the layman 10,000 foot overview.

Why do you find the flu shot questionable based upon something you learned, incorrectly, high school? Read the CDC report on the flu vaccine[1].

Your "theory" on shingles is inaccurate. The chickenpox virus can go dormant and resurface as shingles. Read the Mayo Clinic's overview.[2]

Basically, you are entirely wrong and are spreading inaccurate information, stop it.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-benefits.htm [2] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shingles/symp...

I've never seen the shingles vaccine marketed towards people who had chicken pox, just the opposite. On my vaccinations forms, I always saw a checkmark for the shingles vaccine that said something along the lines of "had chicken pox", which was essentially an exception.

What? Shingles is caused by the virus that causes chickenpox, which lays dormant in your body after you have had chickenpox. So you should especially get the shingles vaccine if you have had chickenpox.

The primary issue is that vaccines are becoming a very large percentage of pharmas profits as well as there being protections for the industry to prevent people for suing them if a vaccine turns out to be actually unsafe. As far as I know this also applies if there were issues in the manufacturing even if the vaccine itself is safe.

Vaccines are very important and most make sense but we are at what appears to be a tipping point where profits may go over the general well-being of the public.

We need proper oversight.

> The primary issue is that vaccines are becoming a very large percentage of pharmas profits

[Citation needed]. Vaccines are practically sold at break-even cost, and in fact in the last few decades many companies have exited the vaccine market entirely because there was so little money to be made.

> as well as there being protections for the industry to prevent people for suing them if a vaccine turns out to be actually unsafe

These liability protections exist because vaccines are so unprofitable. If you didn't have indemnity for a product that both

a) gets distributed to almost everyone, and so even tiny probabilities of side effects result in large absolute numbers of cases

b) has a tiny profit margin

no one would ever take on that risk, and the only way for vaccines to get made would be from nationalized industries.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265102/revenues-in-the-g...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/merck-pfizer-sanofi-pasteur-...

Vaccines do have shitloads of oversight and its world wide. Do you think the US FDA is somehow the only org in the entire world that's checking vaccines and drugs?

By oversight I mean are vaccines being pushed that are unnecessary for everyone to get (for example yearly flu). Are government officials being lobbied to pass laws requiring vaccines that are not needed etc.

I believe the vaccines them selves are safe and tested.

To all the others saying intelligent anti-vaxxer is an oxymoron, you can be brilliant in some fields and have doorknob level intelligence in others.

I personally don't dismiss his work, but Linus Pauling is probably an example you would like.

I usually consider Ben Carson as a modern and well known example.

I had no idea Ben Carson was a vaccine skeptic.

To be fair, he's only a neurosurgeon, so I'm sure we all know better than him about this.

To clarify, he's only a pediatric neurosurgeon who pioneered procedures previously pondered as preposterous. This is actually something he's a recognized expert on, but because he holds a different opinion than you, he must be wrong.

He's not even antivax, he just thinks that newborns shouldn't receive a full round of shots immediately after birth, but that they should be spaced out. What an idiotic, uninformed individual.

I don't think Carson's anti-vax.

I think he's being used as an example of someone who can be brilliant in one specialty while demonstrating /u/magashna's "doorknob level intelligence" in other fields like Egyptian archeology.

Precisely. I remember hearing him in his debates years ago and the jokes about "well it's not like he's a brain surgeon...what!?"

Ben Carson's views on pediatric vaccines might or might not be well founded but his views on Egyptology certainly proves the point well that expertise in one area doesn't prevent one from being very poorly informed in another.

>pediatric neurosurgeon who pioneered procedures previously pondered as preposterous

"Practitioner" would have made a beautiful 7x combo

Ooh, nice. Thanks!

Anti-vaxxers start with their premise and then work backwards. "They contain mercury!" is just shit they flung at the wall that stuck. Eliminate the mercury from vaccines and they'll find a new excuse not to vaccinate their kids.

In fact Thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in Europe in 1999 and in the United States in 2001. (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index....), (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/...).

>Never mind that it wasn't elemental mercury and was perfectly safe to ingest…

I’m sure you didn’t mean non-elemental forms of mercury are safe, but to forestall someone’s taking that meaning: “Organic” mercury compounds can be far more toxic than elemental mercury.

See dimethyl mercury [1]. A single drop exposure (through a latex glove) killed a scientist 10 months after exposure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury

Agree with your post, the amount of thimerosal (Hg-based preservative) made it a non-issue in vaccine safety.

> Agree with your post, the amount of thimerosal (Hg-based preservative) made it a non-issue in vaccine safety.

Any insights on why it has been banned from childhood vaccines since 2001? (see. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index....)

That page doesn't say banned, it says most of them never had it in the first place. (It also indicates that the multi-use flu shot vials still have it, which further refutes the 'banned' wording.)

The likely reason it was removed from those that did have it was "people are making a fuss about it, why not remove the ammo even if it's harmless?"

No insights that I can support. My long-unrefreshed impression of thimerosal after looking into its toxicity as a vaccine preservative is that it was statistically insignificant. Impression not informed by data later than about 2005.

I think it goes beyond mercury but more generally about the always evolving state of brain research:

- on one side you have old, relatively low-quality studies proving vaccines to be safe.

- on the other side, recent studies forcing us to re-think what we thought we knew. For instance, aluminium was previously thought to be eliminated via urine but has been proven to be able to migrate to the brain via the immune system where it can create chronic inflammation.

I think that we will quietly move away from aluminium-based vaccine for safety reasons. So this is terrific news if it offers another path for vaccination.

Vaccines are obviously "statistically" safe, but our knowledge on the matter is still evolving. And it's best to keep an open, scientific mind on the subject.

Some recent research papers on aluminium and the brain: https://www.sciencedirect.com/search/advanced?qs=aluminium%2...

A blog post from a parent that really helped me understand the POV of some "smart" anti-vaxxers: https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018

I agree. Everyone is unique due to their genetic expression from a lifetime of immune function and response. There is limited data and close to zero statistical confidence for the human population about what constitutes effective antibody levels for immunity because antibody levels are almost never measured in vaccine recipients. For example, the chicken pox vaccine trial groups were in the low thousands of people (search and read). The levels of vaccine sub-proteins and adjuvants are almost never measured in recipients. So while disease levels have decreased, likely due to vaccines and other environmental issues, there is almost no measurable data for antibody titer levels or accumulation and immune responses to the vaccine or any other ingredients or injection sites.

The HLA gene SNPs can help indicate reaction to vaccine subproteins and the immune response, or the accumulation of adjuvants like Aluminum, Mercury, etc in some people (scientific studies are starting to emerge on this). I know of three different vaccine+recipients (flu, polio, rabies) who suffered from or are still suffering from Guillane-Barre syndrome which started within days of injections. My son now has tendon flexor issues and had transient synovitis in the leg/hip near his chicken pox vaccine injection. The doctors dismiss any connection to the vaccine with zero data to back up their claim when in fact it by far the largest factor (detailed analysis of my son's leg, material accumulation, and genetic testing could shed more light).

First of all, if you are going to make a serious comment, don’t stereotype. That’s like saying “all Democrats hate babies” which is obviously a ridiculous statement. There is a plethora of reasons why people are anti-vaccine. For me, I think that the preservatives are incredibly dangerous. If I could buy vaccines without preserves I would gladly pay more and happily give them to my children. The fact that I have to inject my child with additional chemicals not required for the vaccine has me in the anti-vax boat.

Do you have some research to back up the dangers?

“2-phenoxyethanol” “can cause skin and lung irritation. It's also toxic to the kidneys, nervous system, and liver, and repeated, long-term exposure can cause organ damage. It notes that toxic effects can occur through inhalation, skin exposure, and ingestion.”

“Phenoxyethanol is thought to cause central nervous system damage in exposed infants.”

1. http://www.wellnesstoday.com/beauty/phenoxyethanol-in-beauty...

2. https://www.healthline.com/health/phenoxyethanol

This is just 1 example and a quick reference since I’m on my phone, but there are a number of research papers on this chemical. Again, this is just 1 reference, there are a number of chemicals used as preservatives. A good comparison would be spraying vegetables. Harmful chemicals are used. There are good sides and bad sides to spraying, but at the same time there are many people who choose to purchase organic vs non.

> I think that the preservatives are incredibly dangerous.

Which is a statement that is in no way supported by any data we have on the use of vaccines. Facts don't care about what you think.

Your children are many many times more likely to get seriously injured by the diseases prevented by a vaccine, than possible side effects said vaccine.

I don't know how you can go "my gut feeling is better than your statistics" while putting children in measurable danger, then expecting people to be understanding of your position.

Look at the reference above. I clearly stated that I didn’t like X and if they did Y I would promote vaccines. However, HN continues to get more and more toxic by the day. I disagreed with you and you went on full-tilt assault. Shame on you for being so near sighted, directly attacking, and disallowing any conversation. If you would like to argue and be disrespectful, there are many places on reddit for that. I’m sorry that you are upset or just angry, but people enjoy open conversation here.

And the response clearly stated that letting your dislike of X outweigh the clear and evidence-supported benefits of vaccines is an emotional response that increases the risks of bad outcomes for children and not something that others need to be sympathetic to. It certainly wasn't showing you respect but it wasn't toxic, and your response is simply a refusal to engage with someone who says you are wrong disguised as a complaint about not wanting to argue, and a nice ironic little endnote implying that feeling emotions is bad and should not be allowed to interrupt the nice conversations here.

You don't have to engage, and in fact I can't imagine any rational way for you to do so. But you can simply not respond rather than turn the conversation into an attack on the other person.

No, it's you who should feel shame for promoting this toxic FUD about vaccines. People will directly suffer and even die because of anti-vaccer rhetoric like yours.

Seriously, shame on you.

Hi, anti-vaxxer here. It's never really been about "the mercury". Its about having a perfectly normal child that suddenly "regresses" after shots, be it through autism, sudden seizures, new allergies, or even death.

Don't take my word for it, the inserts themselves state most of the risks[0] from death all the way to shedding live bio-engineered virus onto the immunocompromised (so much for that argument). Plus part of the deal that the government had after removing vaccine manufactures for any liability for injury or deaths was to have a "database" of reported injuries for the public to analyze the safety for themselves[1]

So you see, we are not crazy, we are people that have children and we research what we believe is best for them. Following one's conscious is a one of the ideas allowed by our founding fathers. This image sums it up best: https://i.imgur.com/PdsJLLD.png

[0]:https://vaccine.guide/

[1]: https://tinyurl.com/y6ap37qo

This is anecdotal scaremongering. There is no correlation between vaccines and any of the side-effects you've claimed. This has been debunked repeatedly. Autism, seizures, and allergies are often associated with vaccines because they are not visible birth defects, but are instead discovered.

About the last image you linked: Even if you agree that the parents can make (wrong) decisions that put their kids at risks avoiding vaccines, it doesn't force you to make the same decisions. So what is your reason to not vaccinate your children?

(Moreover, if some people is not vaccinating their children, it makes me more alert not to skip/delay the vaccines of my children.)

(It's a problem for the children that can't get the vaccines for medical reasons.)

About the last link [1]: Note that there are 400 cases in 40 years, so it's like 10 case per year. Probably the trip to the hospital and back is more dangerous. Also, the first case looks like a sepsis that is almost surely not related to the vaccine. The last one in the page says that the diagnosis was "H. Influenza meningitis;" that is unrelated to the vaccine. Some other cases are not so clear or have previous illness. Some look like an allergic reaction that perhaps may be caused by the vaccine, but I only look at them for a few seconds and I'm not a medical doctor. Do you have a link to a list of cases that are filtered to exclude the cases that are obviously not caused by the vaccine?

Correlation is not causation. There is not a single shred of credible evidence to support causation.

Vaccines do not cause autism. Regression events are likely due to genes being expressed (or failing to be expressed) at certain critical periods during development under which important neurodevelopmental processes are controlled e.g. synaptogenesis. This is a case of correlation does not equal causation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com