Hacker News Reader

Comment by phkahler | Hacker News Reader

Aren't the vaccines supposed to protect us from the anti-vaccine movement? Oh right, they don't always work so we need herd immunity. How about this:

Make eradication a priority rather than endless vaccination programs that look like corporate welfare. I know this is actually very very hard.

Stop telling people the mercury really isn't a problem and just quit putting it in there as a preservative. This OTOH is not hard. I'm not going to debate weather the mercury passes through, just pointing out that we don't even need to have the discussion. I know cost is supposed to be a factor, but when my employer is having someone come to give flu shots "for free" I don't think the cost difference is too much for a first world country. Eliminate the concern rather than worry about convincing people.

View on HN

Stop telling people the mercury really isn't a problem and just quit putting it in there as a preservative.

That's half the problem!

Mercury hasn't been in vaccines, and the confused compound hasn't been in vaccines for at least a decade:

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

Thiomersal is a mercury compound. Mercury is know to be bad for you. The research only tells us that the compound is out of the blood stream in X hours, it does not tell us that all the mercury is gone - i.e. the compound could break down and the mercury stored away. This is not certain, but given there are alternative we may as well use them - that was my point and it has nothing to do with autism.

> Oh right, they don't always work so we need herd immunity.

The problem here isn't vaccines, it's the human immune system, which is imperfect. People who've had the chicken pox as a child can and do get it later in life. Vaccines only work by manipulating the existing machinery of the immune system, and so can only do so much. They're not meant to be some kind of magical potion that confers perfect immunity.

Herd immunity is a key part, however, of how vaccines keep POPULATIONS healthy. By giving a large number of individuals (say, 95%) a significantly reduced chance of catching a communicable disease, the entire population is at less risk of a disease outbreak because it's harder for the infection to spread. This is why polio, measles, mumps, etc. have been exceedingly rare in the US in the later half of the 20th century - because large numbers of people were more resistant to catching the diseases and therefore much less likely to spread the disease to others.

> Make eradication a priority rather than endless vaccination programs that look like corporate welfare. I know this is actually very very hard.

Yes. It's been done once with a human disease, and that was through a massive, worldwide vaccination campaign. What other means do you suggest we employ to eradicate a disease? Massive quarantines? Airstrikes on areas with outbreaks?

Vaccinations are the cornerstone of any eradication effort!

Further, there are people who can't get vaccinated for a variety of reasons (the CDC has a list here for various vaccines: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm). Those are the people that we need the herd immunity for.

The mercury isn't primarily in there as a preservative. The vaccines have mercury or aluminum or other irritants for the designed purpose of provoking a strong immune response.

> The mercury isn't primarily in there as a preservative.

This is wrong. Mercury was only ever present (intentionally, at least) in vaccines as part of thiomersol (a preservative).

> The vaccines have mercury or aluminum or other irritants for the designed purpose of provoking a strong immune response.

Aluminum is used as an adjuvant. Mercury containing compounds are not.

If you can cite a credible source to the contrary, I'd be much obliged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com