The luxury of anti-vaccinationism: Part II

You know what burns me is that the stupid reporters who just gobbled up the antivax propaganda and spewed it at our feet are now reporting on these outbreaks without one word about the decreased herd immunity that contributed to the damned things.

If there was ever anything that made me want to be a conspiracy nut....

voluntarily choosing, for completely non-medical reasons, to not allow your child to receive basic immunizations is like driving drunk

Its driving drunk with your kids in the car. Not only are you putting third parties in harms way, your are also, in a much more direct manner, putting your own kids in harms way.

Hmmm, more non-science, just like http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/pseudo-paleovirology.php#c2732861"<. Thanks, though, for the op-ed and the emoting.

Sadly, not only in America...

Ah, I see. Rho is horrified that a science-blogger is engaged in science-blogging on a site called ScienceBlogs. Tell Virginia we said hi.

What Rho, no bible quote showing why vaccines are against HIS scripture? Disappointing effort.

His comment ends abruptly. Something might have gotten cut off. If I had to guess, it was probably something along the lines of ERV making value judgments about people who don't get themselves vaccinated because ERV is an atheist and has no objective basis for making such a judgment.

What if people choose to spend their money on a boob job when other people's children are starving? Okay to let them die?

I think the issues that surround social responsibility and vaccination are complicated and can end up challenging some liberal assumptions about personal freedom. Almost all of our actions and beliefs will have some affect upon others - that's why we should all feel so incessantly weighed down by guilt and shame.

That's inaction, gf1, not negligence. It's not nearly as bad, just as failure to vaccinate is not nearly as bad deliberately infecting someone with a disease.

What if people choose to spend their money on a boob job when other people's children are starving?

Sometimes known as the "greater evil fallacy." There is always something worse somewhere which demands our efforts more than whatever we're doing, or which can be a source of guilt when we're doing something unnecessary for frivolous reasons like making a child happy.

What if people choose to spend their money on a boob job when other people's children are starving? Okay to let them die?

You might have a point if the only reason to get your children vaccinated was to protect others. Its not. The primary reason to get your kids vaccinated is to protect . . . your kids!

If you dont, then you are leaching off the rest of society to do what is your responsiblity as a parent, namely protect your kids.

So the analogy is more like, "What if you choose to get a boob job rather than feed your own kids, requiring the state welfare services to feed them for you?"

And that scenario challenges only the sociopath's assumptions of personal freedom. Everyone else, conservative and liberal alike, is going to think youre a douche.

Yeah, sadly not only in America.... I once heard an epidemiologist claim that the vast majority of Measles outbreaks in the US originated from family holidays to/from either the UK or Switzerland - two of the countries in Europe with the lowest vaccination rates :(
I apologize on behalf of my misinformed countrymen.

"Sometimes known as the "greater evil fallacy."

No reference to gf1's point, but why is this a fallacy? Because we're not as a whole 'good' enough that we will always choose the greater good at all times?
How is that fallacious? It just seems pretty damning of human beings to me. I'm sitting here buying an app on my I-Phone when that money could save lives. Ergo I'm a shit. I don't see a fallacy there.

Blame the UK media for the drop in the UK measles vaccine uptake rate. Anyone else here read Ben Goldacre's blog/book, Bad science? There's a nice summary there.

Herd immunity... I wish the general public didn't know about it. From your first measles job, about 85% of children get an antibody response (and here, we're using antibody response as a proxy for protection from the full disease). From the second jab, some 85-95% of those who didn't respond last time round will respond. That's still not total coverage (esp. when you add in children with immune/health problems that mean they CANNOT be vaccinated). But it's close enough to 100% for heard immunity and potential eradication that it works. Until a yummy mummy decides that little Tarquin and Lavender aren't going to be vaccinated, because herd immunity is for the herd, not her precious babies - let other people's children take the risks. But there are too many Tarquins and Lavenders out there, and they (or their baby siblings) will be first to cop it when there's an outbreak. Which their young, recently qualified GP won't recognise because he won't know what measles looks like.

Just to clear up, I was referencing ERV's comment that 'The line gets drawn when peoples own decisions effects other people.' I don't think that we're able to identify any clear line - or that if we are, it encircles almost all our actions and beliefs.

Disgusting, yes. Irresponsible, yes, at least from a societal viewpoint, although not from an individual viewpoint. If a parent can assume that the vast, vast majority of other children will be vaccinated, it's arguably rational for that parent to depend on herd immunity, not to have his or her child(ren) vaccinated, and thereby avoid even the tiny risk of side effects. Of course, the obvious flaw in that reasoning is that it's a successful strategy only for as long as nearly everyone else avoids it.

But I think the actress Amanda Peet summed it up pretty well: ""Frankly, I feel that parents who don't vaccinate their children are parasites." She later apologized for that remark, which I don't think she should have done. Those parents who do not have their children vaccinated *are* parasites, allowing others to take the risks while they reap the benefits. My wife and I didn't have children, but if we had we most certainly would have had them vaccinated.

Incidentally, how do these parents get away with it? In North Carolina, and I believe in all other states, a child can't start public or private school without presenting evidence of vaccination. Home schoolers--secular and religious--also have to comply with this law. Basically, if you don't get your kids vaccinated, they can't attend school of any sort. If they don't attend school--public, private, or home--the authorities show up and take them away from you.

I would have thought that similar laws existed in all developed countries. Is this not the case?

Not American so I don't know for sure, but I thought that that law only applied to Public schools, not home-schools and possibly not Private schools.

Also, will no-one enlighten me? I've thought about it some more, and I still don't see how that's a fallacy.

Ah, my mistake. I thought that NC required vaccination for home schoolers, but there are apparently exemptions on religious grounds. I found this disgusting summary:

Philosophical Exemption
The following 18 states allow exemption to vaccination based on philosophical, personal or conscientiously held beliefs: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

In many of these states, individuals must object to all vaccines, not just a particular vaccine in order to use the philosophical or personal belief exemption. Many state legislators are being urged by federal health officials and medical organizations to revoke this exemption to vaccination. If you are objecting to vaccination based on philosophical or personal conviction, keep an eye on your state legislature as public health officials may seek to amend state laws to eliminate this exemption.

Religious Exemption
All states allow a religious exemption to vaccination except Mississippi and West Virginia. The religious exemption is intended for people who hold a sincere religious belief opposing vaccination to the extent that if the state forced vaccination, it would be an infringement on their right to exercise their religious beliefs. Some state laws define religious exemptions broadly to include personal religious beliefs, similar to personal philosophical beliefs. Other states require an individual who claims a religious exemption to be a member of The First Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science) or another bonafide religion whose written tenets include prohibition of invasive medical procedures such as vaccination. (This kind of language has been ruled unconstitutional when it has been challenged in state Supreme Courts.) Some laws require a signed affidavit from the pastor or spiritual advisor of the parent exercising religious exemption that affirms the parents' sincere religious belief about vaccination, while others allow the parent to sign a notarized waiver. Prior to registering your child for school, you must check your state law to verify what proof may be needed.

My biggest challenge is trying to find ways to have a reasonable discourse with people on the topic. A lot of anti-vax types think that it's a matter of potentially harming their own child to theoretically protect other people. It's a non-argument for them. It doesn't matter how low the risk is because for them it's always too high. It's like telling someone who is scared to fly that their odds of dying in a plane crash are exponentially lower than their chance of dying driving to the airport and it's the same mentality that allows people to believe their chances of winning the lottery are high enough to be worth the cost of the ticket.

In short, anti-vaxers simply do not understand the probabilities involved. You can say "the risk associated with the currently low probability of contracting the disease or worse than the risks of any side effects that might be associated with the vaccine" but to them, they have been bombarded with "evidence" of the vaccine's risk and they have never met an individual who has suffered as a result of contracting one of the diseases.

So when we have a discussion, my suggestion that it is in everyone's best interest to vaccinate their child is turned into "you want to put my child at risk to save other children" and that discussion can never lead anywhere good.

My 17-year old sister has come out to me as anti-vax, and I can't even express how frustrating it is to have a discussion on the subject with her. One minute, she's an intelligent, articulate, charming person, open-minded and reasonably about a whole host of ideas, and then once you get on this subject, she's a different person: irrational, angry, and an ability to hurl abuse and non-sequiturs like nobody's business. We're deep in the middle of our first fight because of this. She tells me to read certain books or postings, but when I do, I discover that either a) the book doesn't support her point AT ALL or b) the source is so transparently unreliable (latest one is Dr Tenpenny) I can't even believe my sister is being serious. It's like I'm being punked.

I'm half-convinced that this all started because she's afraid of needles, and so was looking for something to justify her not getting them and has now turned into a full-fledged conviction that medical science is lying to everyone for a quick buck. If anyone has any ideas or experience with helping someone come out the other side, I'd be tremendously grateful.

Marnie @20, I think you've hit the nail on the head - innumeracy + selfishness = a discussion that goes nowhere.

I've not really paid attention to the vaccine controversy.

Is it true that there are required vaccines where the cost to the individual outweighs the benefit? I suppose it would be difficult to judge when both the benefits and risks to the individual can be so small.

I'm not surprised the debate has struck an emotional chord with the parents of those with autism, who often feel that the medical community has shrugged its shoulders at their hardships. It's all very well making arguments about the social good, but when those individuals who have health problems often have only limited social support it can seem like a one sided-bargain to the risk-averse.

I wonder if there is any correlation between a societies' provision of medical and disability benefits and its ability to overcome this sort of prisoner's dilemma.

Sorry quietmarc,

You could try this:

http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2008/05/preventing-p…

....and the oxford practical ethics forum has a really interesting lead up now on HIV infection/criminality ethics where a lot of the human behavioral issues are similar to the anti-vax issues.

No reference to gf1's point, but why is this a fallacy? Because we're not as a whole 'good' enough that we will always choose the greater good at all times?

Partly it's a matter of making the perfect the enemy of the good, partly it's a matter of "rescuer safety [1]" and partly it's a matter of ignoring locality. The fact that there are children starving somewhere on Earth does not absolve me from helping a non-starving child right here who's missing out on educational opportunities.

The sad fact is that the "greater evil fallacy" is most often invoked, not to rally support for a worthy cause, but to divert support from a perhaps less worthy but still good cause.

[1] Stripping resources from a productive enterprise to feed people today can tank the productive enterprise, impairing the ability to help them tomorrow. Equivalent to a lifeguard who takes foolish risks in an attempt to save someone, she turns herself into another victim requiring rescue.

Who is paying you to write this trash? Repeat after me: Chicken pox vax is an economic vaccine, designed to keep parents working, consuming, paying taxes.

I also note you and many other pro-vax propagandists never wrote about the child who brought polio to Minnesota from some third world country because he was vaccinated through a program driven by bean counters trying to save a dollar.

The pro-vaccine moonbats in the national mainstream press made much ado about the Minnesota outbreak--until they found out the source of the outbreak. After the Minnesota Department of Health admitted that the polio outbreak was *because* of a child who was vaccinated in another country (thanks be to bean counters trying to maximize health care dollars) using a less expensive oral vaccine, the pro-vaccine moonbat propagandists went silent.

And then it happened again in 2009. Again in Minnesota.

Both instances are mentioned here.

Since such stories never make the national press, I can only speculate that people becoming sick due to the vaccine is far more common than is reported.

"if a female wants to get a boob-job (or vice versa)"

A boob getting a female-job?

"Is it true that there are required vaccines where the cost to the individual outweighs the benefit? I suppose it would be difficult to judge when both the benefits and risks to the individual can be so small."

gf1 - giving the HPV vaccine to boys would be a really effective way of boosting the vaccines efficacy and protecting girls who (for whatever reason) aren't vaccinated; but since men can't get cervical cancer (and penile [penis?!] cancer is uncommon), the risks to males outweigh the benefits to males. So boys don't get it (although you might be able to make a societal argument). There's always a tipping point when a vaccine-preventable disease gets REALLY rare, that the risk of getting the disease is similar to the adverse reaction risk of the vaccine - but as soon as you stop giving the vaccine, the risk tips wildly as the disease becomes much more prevalent.

You don't have to have vaccines at UK schools, you can opt out. I haven't had the TB jab, but I'm still waiting for the new adjuvant vaccine they were trialling about two years ago (they only wanted male unvaccinated volunteers...). Everything else - I have. Which was useful when a former (unvaccinated) boyfriend got mumps...

I also note you and many other pro-vax propagandists never wrote about the child who brought polio to Minnesota from some third world country because he was vaccinated through a program driven by bean counters trying to save a dollar.

Google FAIL!

But hey, I'm in favor of having everyone in America pay an extra $50 in taxes every year so that we can subsidize the cost difference between OPV and IPV vaccination in third world countries. Somehow I don't think that's what Limp Willy had in mind.

Remember, the Minneota cases weren't that a family flew their children to a third world country to get cheaper vaccines. It's that people from and vaccinated in a third world country that can't afford the safer-but-not-quite-as-effective vaccine came to/visited Minnesota and infected immuno-compromised people.

Since such stories never make the national press, I can only speculate that people becoming sick due to the vaccine is far more common than is reported.

Yet both of these did make the national media. But you have a point - these are not the only cases. In fact there have been 45 such incidents reported to health officials.

Worldwide.

Since 1961.

Fearmonger FAIL!

@gf1: Charl is right. Basically, here in the US, the risk/benefit ratio is considered. That's why we no longer give the smallpox vaccine; the risk from the vaccine is greater (due to vaccine eradication of the disease) than the risk of getting the disease.

@Willy Wallace: I don't know why I'm answering you, troll, but I want anyone who might stumble onto this post to know the truth. Yes, in many ways, the varicella vaccine IS an economic vaccine. Few parents these days can afford to take off 21 days of quarantine if their child is exposed then however many days IF the child gets sick (yes, the incubation period for chicken pox can be up to 21 days). However, it also saves lives. Children and adults die from chicken pox. Or aren't those people important to you?

Yes, poor countries tend to use the oral polio vaccine over the injection. However, you have to keep in mind the economic status of the country. It's far more cost effective to use the cheaper, more effective, requires no refrigeration oral vaccine over the more expensive (you need sterile needles, sterile syringes, the ability to clean the skin and inject the person, refrigeration of the vaccine) injection. However, the oral vaccine does carry the risk of live virus transmission through oral-fecal transmission. No one denies this. No one ignores this. But remember this the child was vaccinated with a different vaccine in a foreign country. If they had been vaccinated in the US, perhaps the infection would not have occurred. I doubt the âpro-vaccine moonbat propagandists went silent...â because they were embarrassed about the disease. Instead I suspect since the cause of the infection was known, and they were reassured it was not from the IPV, they didnât need to say any more about the risks of vaccine IN THE USA since the US uses the IPV instead of the OPV.

William Wallace brings up a theme that I've seen a lot since I started reading about this: anti-vaxxers seem to confuse what a good vaccine does under proper oversight with the consequences that happen when the oversight is not present. Examples of vaccines "failing" that I've seen almost always are really about someone using an untested vaccine, using the vaccine incorrectly, using expired vaccines, etc, etc - basically the problems "with vaccines" are actually problems with people not following instructions.

In this case, because the problem could stem from a lower-quality vaccine administered in another country with a completely different set of safeguards, somehow this means that ALL vaccines, even those researched, tested, and administered properly, are bad. Blaming the tool for human error.

The Lottery by Shirley Jackson.

Children and adults die from chicken pox. Or aren't those people important to you?

Corrections: First off the vaccine isn't proven safe or effective into adulthood, and indeed, the vaccine may theoretically lead to greater complications for those adults who did not contract wild chicken pox as children due to the chicken pox vaccine.

Second, children with compromised immune systems and/or other infections (staph) die from chicken pox. Chick pox by itself in an otherwise healthy child does not kill. The chicken pox vaccine may be useful for children with other risk factors, but in general, I am glad that you admit and agree that mandating the vaccine was done for reasons very different than those behind mandating the polio or small pox vaccines. The chicken pox vaccine is about money, mostly.

Wow, Willy, I'm impressed. That has to be the longest non-sequitur I've yet seen linked on ERV.

Every time Willy posts, somewhere a sack of hammers laughs at him.

Every time Willy posts, somewhere a sack of hammers laughs at him.

Ho ho ho. Hark, where in Hel are my Hammers?
//ThoRrr

Hello all,

This is my first post to this blog and I have a few Questions to begin.

Forgive me if they have been asked prior, but if anyone would like to answer, it'd be appreciated.

Do any of the Pro-All Vaccines people on this list agree that a significant number of otherwise healthy children have been permanently damaged or died soon after receiving their vaccinations?

Do any of the Pro-All Vaccine people on this list agree that a significant number of otherwise healthy young girls have been permanently damaged or died soon after receiving their Gardasil vaccinations?

Do you think this was just coincidence?

Do you think the vaccines were to blame in any way?

Do you think it OK to inject Thimerosal (Mercury), Formaldehyde, Aluminum & Aspartame (to name but a few toxins) into the body of an infant, who was given no choice in this decision?

Finally, if your children have been vaccinated against xyz disease, why would you care if others are NOT vaccinated, surely your children are immune to the effects the disease may pose?

Please keep your "sack of hammers" jokes to yourselves and answer the questions in the manner they were asked.

Thanks.

Do any of the Pro-All Vaccines people on this list agree that a significant number of otherwise healthy children have been permanently damaged or died soon after receiving their vaccinations?

Of course not, because it's horseshit.

Do any of the Pro-All Vaccine people on this list agree that a significant number of otherwise healthy young girls have been permanently damaged or died soon after receiving their Gardasil vaccinations?

Of course not, because it's horseshit.

Do you think this was just coincidence?

No, I think it was fabrication and false reporting and innumeracy on your part and others.

Do you think it OK to inject Thimerosal (Mercury), Formaldehyde, Aluminum & Aspartame (to name but a few toxins) into the body of an infant, who was given no choice in this decision?

I know! It's horrible! Did you know that they give babies elemental iron and calcium without their consent? Did you know that some babies produce opiate analogs IN THEIR BRAINS! It's so scary when you say things with science words!

Finally, if your children have been vaccinated against xyz disease, why would you care if others are NOT vaccinated, surely your children are immune to the effects the disease may pose?

Well, you're a selfish little prig, aren't you? Project much?

Please keep your "sack of hammers" jokes to yourselves and answer the questions in the manner they were asked.

If you want to get serious, thoughtful and polite answers, try asking serious, thoughtful and polite questions.

Hello all,

This is my first post to this blog and I have a few Questions to begin.

Forgive me if they have been asked prior, but if anyone would like to answer, it'd be appreciated.

(not)-Joe the (not)-plumber;

I'll answer these questions straightforwardly, even thoughI doubt you are asking in good faith. I base my assessment that these questions aren't being asked in good faith in part because of the wording of the questions. In the legal system, these would likely be considered "leading questions" and as such indicate that the person is questioning a hostile witness. Note that I am discussing permanent damage or death only; if you want a more nuanced discussion, please phrase you next set of questions to that effect.

Do any of the Pro-All Vaccines people on this list agree that a significant number of otherwise healthy children have been permanently damaged or died soon after receiving their vaccinations?

I agree that some children have been permanently damaged or died soon after receiving their vaccinations. However, when compared to the number of children who would have been permanently damaged or died from vaccine-preventable diseases, that number is not significant. For that matter, the absolute number of such children only reaches significance if factors such as time are ignored - ie, 500 hundred is a lot of children if measured over a week, but not a lot if measured over a century. (numbers chosen at random)

Do any of the Pro-All Vaccine people on this list agree that a significant number of otherwise healthy young girls have been permanently damaged or died soon after receiving their Gardasil vaccinations?

No. There have been, at worst, a handful of incidents of permanent damage or death. There have been millions of Gardasil vaccinations.

Do you think this was just coincidence?

Do you think the vaccines were to blame in any way?

For which, Gardasil or vaccinations in general? For Gardasil, the number is so small that it could be entirely accounted for by coincidence. For vaccinations in general, I will agree that some, but not all or even most, of the incidents were caused by vaccines. However, I would like to point out that many of the children so affected had underlying conditions that any activation of the immune system ran the risk of causing the incident. In other words, it is important to remember that "otherwise apparently healthy" is not the same thing as "otherwise healthy."

Do you think it OK to inject Thimerosal (Mercury), Formaldehyde, Aluminum & Aspartame (to name but a few toxins) into the body of an infant, who was given no choice in this decision?

At the doses present in vaccines, yes, unless of course there was a known contraindication (for example, some people have problems with excess aspartame in food).

Keep in mind that not all compounds of mercury are as toxic as others. For instance, the same mass of mercury as found in a thimerosal vaccine is fatal if it's in the form of di-methyl mercury - even through latex gloves! People, even infants, are quite capable of excreting toxins. The danger is when the uptake of the toxin exceed the rate at which the body can get rid of it, and these compounds are not present at high enough doses to accumulate. And remember - even water is toxic, in high enough doses of course.

Finally, if your children have been vaccinated against xyz disease, why would you care if others are NOT vaccinated, surely your children are immune to the effects the disease may pose?

No, there would still be a chance that my children were not immune. Please see Abbie'sposton thissubjet fora more in-depth treatment.

Please keep your "sack of hammers" jokes to yourselves and answer the questions in the manner they were asked.

Thanks.

I have answered in the manner you pretended to ask the questions. I have doubts that they were actually asked in that manner, however. Further contact could prove me wrong, of course, which I would welcome. I fear that I will be proven correct.

Joe the plumber, I'm vaccinated against gardasil as are my sisters. No negative reactions here.and I believe it was little Willy commenting that if we're vaccinated then what does it matter if others don't, well while most vaccinated people mount an immune response to rubella unfortunately my mother and I don't (sisters do) through no fault of my own I'm at risk, if I manage to get infection during pregnancy my baby is at risk of serious consequences including severe mental retardation and death. Anti-vaxers are very good at spreading their lies and actually making it sound plausible to the average uneducated and quite frankly lazy layperson. I say lazy because most of them read up on sites that support their view without realising the info being presented is often manipulated and ill informed and don't bother to doublecheck. An example I've come across is one group that claimed reverse transcriptase is a chicken retrovirus. ah no reverse transcriptase is not a chicken retrovirus and yet this site was recommended as a good source of vaccination info. the person who recommended it then proceeded to tell me the health officials, drs and reputable journals are too scared to annoy the big pharmaceutical companies so people have to self-publish. gee not because the research is bunk? maybe you should try looking up thalidomide to sort that one out. then she told me vaccines are not tested independently and aren't regulated at all hmm guess you'd better not use any medications because they're all tested and regulated by the same organisations which according to you don't exist

So there's no confusion I refer to thalidomide because its a prime example it how drs and regulatory agencies took on the big bad pharmaceutical company