Anti-vaccine woo at its finest

[athon]

Sarcasm, right?



That's true. But whenever someone says that vaccinations do not cause problems (like the disease they're supposed to prevent, autism, or whatever), I have my doubts.

But then, I've not had the flu since that time (early 1990's). Either the flu vaccine that gave me the flu also gave me some hard-core resistance to a variety of flu strains, or I've been very lucky.

And I don't believe in luck.

From my point of view, I don't think the issue is that there is zero risk from vaccines. There certainly is. And anti-vaxers might even have a small point in that in today's world, there is more of a comparable risk of your child getting consequences from a vaccine than if they didn't.

However, vaccination is more of a 'herd' thing than an individual one. On the balance of numbers, the majority of a population needs to be vaccinated against a pathogen. A few individuals who don't vaccinate will have greater protection thanks to the herd immunity, as there is a smaller population for a pathogen to flourish in.

Which is what I truly despise about anti-vaxers - they don't take the risk that others take, which ultimately affords them a certain protection from diseases. If nobody was vaccinated then the diseases of past centuries such as smallpox or measles would be hideous, and the risk of a vaccine would be considered small fry in comparison.

Athon

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Which is what I truly despise about anti-vaxers - they don't take the risk that others take, which ultimately affords them a certain protection from diseases.

<snip>

Athon

Now that's something you don't often hear a person who wants more people to make rational choices say.

 

[bluess]

I wish the anti-vaxxers would read some books written during the 1800's. Casual mentions of children dying of cholera, diptheria, measles, smallpox.... as in "I had two little girls, but they both died of diptheria, and you remind me of them." Gene Stratton Porter, A Girl of the Limberlost.

 

[Mobyseven]

Now that's something you don't often hear a person who wants more people to make rational choices say.

Not really. They benefit from herd immunity, but if the immunisation rate drops too low you lose that benefit. Ergo, it is far better for everyone to get immunised who can get immunised.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It depends on your point of view.

From a selfish point of view, it's more optimal in some cases (i.e. only human to human transfer possible) to have everyone but me in the group vaccinated and let them take the risk of adverse reactions, so I have both the benefit of no risk of contracting the disease and no risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

Generalising, it seems reasonable there is some level of vaccine coverage, less than 100%, where the total benefit to the group is greater than that provided by complete coverage.

 

[Dymanic]

Same thing here - getting the flu shot means getting the flu. No shot, no flu. I realize this is anecdotal, and that the vaccine should be unable to give anyone the flu, but I can't help but wonder just what is going on here?

Do you find it pertinent to observe that the timing of vaccination tends to correlate with the onset of flu season? How about the very existence of such a term as "flu-like illness"? Could it be that this reflects the fact that there are any number of illnesses which can be virtually indistinguishable from influenza on clinical diagnosis alone, and against which the influenza vaccine could not reasonably be expected to provide protection?

 

[robinson]

I'm a bit disappointed in the topic. After spending a couple of days reading antivaccine web sites, it is obvious that the woo mentioned here is far from the finest woo. There is such woo, it is beyond belief out there. I'm tempted to splash some of it here, but I don't want anyone thinking I endorse it. Or promote it.

I do want to mock it however.

From my point of view, I don't think the issue is that there is zero risk from vaccines. There certainly is.

Are you saying there is zero risk? Or that there certainly are risk? The risks of some vaccines is well known, so I am thinking you mean there are risk.

And anti-vaxers might even have a small point in that in today's world, there is more of a comparable risk of your child getting consequences from a vaccine than if they didn't.

Are you saying the risk are less for not getting vaccinated? I'm confused.

If nobody was vaccinated then the diseases of past centuries such as smallpox or measles would be hideous, and the risk of a vaccine would be considered small fry in comparison.

Yeah, and stuff like cholera, the black death and leprosy would be everywhere.

Which is what I truly despise about anti-vaxers - they don't take the risk that others take, which ultimately affords them a certain protection from diseases.

Now that's something you don't often hear a person who wants more people to make rational choices say.

Is that even true? Does avoiding vaccines reduce your risk? How do we know that? I thought that was what woos said?

I wish the anti-vaxxers would read some books written during the 1800's. Casual mentions of children dying of cholera, diptheria, measles, smallpox.... as in "I had two little girls, but they both died of diptheria, and you remind me of them." Gene Stratton Porter, A Girl of the Limberlost.

Smallpox was being vaccinated for in 1706 in America.

"...scarred the wrists, legs, and forehead of the patient, placed a fresh and kindly pock in each incision and bound it there for eight or ten days, after this time the patient was credibly informed. The patient would then develop a mild case [of smallpox], recover, and thereafter be immune."

Essay on External Remedies Dr. Kennedy, 1715

I just found out as soon as vaccination became popular, there was an antivaccination group formed!

From a selfish point of view, it's more optimal in some cases (i.e. only human to human transfer possible) to have everyone but me in the group vaccinated and let them take the risk of adverse reactions, so I have both the benefit of no risk of contracting the disease and no risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

I've heard that before. What I don't understand, is how a contagious disease is a danger to those vaccinated against it. The Native Americans were devastated by smallpox and other diseases that Europeans were vaccinated against. Why would somebody getting a disease you can't get, be a danger to you?

Speaking in a selfish sense.

Considering these diseases kill by the millions, you would think this problem would be self correcting. All the antivaccinaters should just die off. Leaving no disease left in the world.

A win win situation.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

From my point of view, I don't think the issue is that there is zero risk from vaccines. There certainly is. And anti-vaxers might even have a small point in that in today's world, there is more of a comparable risk of your child getting consequences from a vaccine than if they didn't.

Vaccines do have some risks, although very small in most cases. Those who are concerned about the risk of vaccines, I'd offer the following advice: Rather than advocating for people NOT to use vaccines, how about you advocate for high quality control on vaccines and for the development of newer vaccines with less risk of side effects or auto-immune problems.

There have been enormous leaps forward in vaccines. There are newer techniques for genetic synthesis that reduce possible allergic reactions and there are also an increasing number of vaccines which can be administered with less injections or even with oral or nasal sprays.

IMHO, concern about vaccines should be directed toward the argument that "We should make better vaccines" than to the "We should not use vaccines" message.

 

[robinson]

I agree with you Buzzo. Testing and studies on vaccines, as well as making them safer, will do more than calling people names and waving hands and and screaming about the danger! The danger!

 

[SteveGrenard]

Anti-vaxxers cited as at least partly to blame for new measles outbreak:

The outbreak -- San Diego County's 1st since 1991
-- began in Switzerland and has spanned about
half the globe. All the patients, from infants to
a 9-year-old, were not vaccinated either because
they were younger than one -- the minimum age for
measles inoculation -- or because their parents
objected to having them vaccinated.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080215-1745-bn15outbreak.html

This article demonstrates how easily measles can be spread among the unvaccinated.

see also: CDC Pink Book, Measles chapter

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

 

[DRBUZZ0]

As mentioned with regards to the "Herd effect." If you do not vaccinate your kid, they are susceptible to infection, but they still *probably* will not get it because of those around them. Thus unvacinated in a vaccinated population still gets a fair amount of protection.

However, if the idea spreads enough and you get a population where a significant portion is not vaccinated then you can have a major outbreak. Yes, it has happened. And it has happened in suburbs of Boston or Westchester County in the US. It has happened in middleclass suburbs in the UK as well and in Canada. These are places you'd expect everyone vaccinated but it's due to the parents thinking vaccines being bad that these yuppies end up with whooping cough or measels or mumps.

Also, it's important to note that having as many vaccinated as reasonably possible is important to provide protection for those who cannot be vaccinated or for whom it is not effective. There is a segment of the population which either is alergic to some vaccines or has autoimmune issues. There are also some with immune system problems or other conditions which prevent the vaccine from being totally effective. In general, many vaccines are not 100% effective on all persons all the time. Someone might just end up being unlucky enough to be in the small percentage for whom it did not offer full protection.

Such individuals, through no fault of their own, depend on the suppression of transmission by the vaccination of those around them. If you vaccinate 99% of the population you no longer have critical mass for a disease to spread. The remaining 1% are at a low risk of getting it (even if not zero).

Those who choose not to be vaccinated for ill informed reasons put themselves at risk as well as increase the proportion of the population unnecessarily. This is highly irresponsible to the public health in general and to those who depend on ubiquitous vaccination to reduce their own risk due to their situation.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

To Americans and Canadians:

Do you think tourists to your respective countries should be required to have their vaccination status checked before being allowed to enter?

 

[DRBUZZ0]

To Americans and Canadians:

Do you think tourists to your respective countries should be required to have their vaccination status checked before being allowed to enter?

Hmmm.. that is a good question. Um... geez.. They do not make up that large a segment of the people in the country at any given time and assuming that everyone else is generally vaccinated...

I suppose I'd have to say no, because there is no legal requirement that citizens in the US be vaccinated. Some schools may require it for kids, but adults can do as they wish, so I'm not sure why you would hold foreigners visiting to a higher standard.

One thing I could understand would be if those from areas which were known to be experiencing outbreaks of certain diseases were screened. Or for that matter, even if customs officials had the authority to question people who appeared physically ill or ask that they submit to a test for something. They did that for SARS and such things.

it's a tough question though.

 

[robinson]

It wasn't in 1917. The Flu Pandemic brought the return of the old fashioned cure for deadly disease outbreaks.

Stop people from spreading it. Quarantine!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It wasn't in 1917. The Flu Pandemic brought the return of the old fashioned cure for deadly disease outbreaks.

Stop people from spreading it. Quarantine!

During the SARS panicoutbreak here in Ontario in 2003 some people were actually forced into quarantine by law.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

During the SARS panicoutbreak here in Ontario in 2003 some people were actually forced into quarantine by law.

Yeah that was a scary time. One of my friends was traveling and he got a bit sick. He thought it could be SARS which would give his demographic only a 99.94% chance of survival. Scary time.

 

[Mobyseven]

It depends on your point of view.

From a selfish point of view, it's more optimal in some cases (i.e. only human to human transfer possible) to have everyone but me in the group vaccinated and let them take the risk of adverse reactions, so I have both the benefit of no risk of contracting the disease and no risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

Generalising, it seems reasonable there is some level of vaccine coverage, less than 100%, where the total benefit to the group is greater than that provided by complete coverage.

It's still not optimal - the situation you are describing would have to be exceptionally stable in order for the benefit to outweigh the risk. Do you get your children vaccinated? What about everybody else - do you think you're the only one to have the idea? And what happens if there is either a sudden influx of new people to the area (through immigration or tourism)? What if you want to go on holiday?

The risk of getting vaccinated is insignificant compared to the benefits vaccination provides.

 

[athon]

Are you saying there is zero risk? Or that there certainly are risk? The risks of some vaccines is well known, so I am thinking you mean there are risk.

Yes, I'm meaning that vaccines carry risks. Depending on the vaccine, there are all manner of side effects, from simple headaches and rashes to full-on shock. These risks are minor when compared with death, brain damage, blindness etc. that diseases such as measles can leave you with, and rare when compared with how often such severe consequences from a disease occured pre-vaccination.

As Buzzo said, with greater advances in immunology, these risks from vaccination diminish. However it's untrue to say there is no risk (which I've never heard any immunologist say anyway).

Are you saying the risk are less for not getting vaccinated? I'm confused.

I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

There is a massive risk of suffering the dire consequences of catching a disease in a community where there is zero vaccination. This risk diminishes a great deal when the population is vaccinated. However, not 100% of the population need to be treated - if 98% are immunised, the 2% remainder will get a huge benefit. In fact, the greater the percentage of the population who are immunised, the less of a chance the remainder of non-immunised will get that disease. This is called herd immunity, as there is a reduced population from which the non-immunsed people can catch anything from.

However, the risk from the vaccine remains high regardless of how many people are immunised. Therefore, those risks stay the same while the risk from disease goes down. For the individual, it gets to the point where it is of greater personal risk to be immunised.

However, this relies on those around you taking that risk on your behalf. A deplorable act in my book.

Is that even true? Does avoiding vaccines reduce your risk? How do we know that? I thought that was what woos said?

Avoiding vaccines means you avoid the risks the vaccine poses. And since others are being vaccinated, herd immunity is giving you protection.

Athon

 

[Chris Haynes]

To Americans and Canadians:

Do you think tourists to your respective countries should be required to have their vaccination status checked before being allowed to enter?

The majority of the recent outbreaks of measles and mumps occurred when Americans traveled abroad and came back sick. Perhaps we should require that they be vaccinated before leaving the country. I believe there was a case of a person from India bringing measles to Boston, and a child from Japan who was participating in a Little League Baseball tournament, and occasionally our county health department puts out a warning that a baby being adopted from China brought measles over (though often they are too young to be vaccinated).

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20080216-9999-1m16measles.html ... imported from Switzerland to California by an American

http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/17/news/story07.html ... imported from Italy or Netherlands to Hawaii by an American

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5442a1.htm , imported from Romania to Indiana by an American

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5311a6.htm , imported to Iowa from India by an American

The problem is that these Americans are protected by herd immunity in the USA because the level of vaccination is so high. It is when they leave and come back that there are problems. Especially when they go to school or church with folks who also have decided to also leech off of the community's herd immunity, and then spread it among them.

The school in San Diego and the church in Indiana being cases of a group finding out that depending on herd immunity kind of falls apart when members travel elsewhere.

 

[robinson]

Avoiding vaccines means you avoid the risks the vaccine poses. And since others are being vaccinated, herd immunity is giving you protection.

That is a novel thought, and one I have not seen on antivaccine sites.

The majority of the recent outbreaks of measles and mumps occurred when Americans traveled abroad and came back sick.

I am going to have to read up on this stuff. When I grew up, everybody got the measles and the mumps as a child, and you could never get it again. You had immunity. No adult ever worried about getting the measles, or the mumps, because they had it as a child as well.

How did Measles and mumps become a deadly disease? And when did they start vaccinating for it? Does the vaccine give you lifetime immunity like getting a case of it? I profess ignorance on this.

I find it hard to believe there are adults who never got the mumps or the measles. How did that happen? What planet do they live on?