6 ms·

I'm a physiologist, and definitely NOT an anti-vaxxer. Two points: 1) What is the specific list of immunizations that are being mandated? 2) If immunizations

I'm a physiologist, and definitely NOT an anti-vaxxer. Two points: 1) What is the specific list of immunizations that are being mandated? 2) If immunizations are to be mandated, great, however the companies that produce them must also be mandated to be transparent in their research and development. For example, they must be required by law to publish all studies on drug safety-- both positive, and negative results. That's currently not required, they're allowed to cherry-pick results!

RandomTisk 8y ago
Me either, but I've always wondered: 3) What danger do un-vaccinated children pose to vaccinated ones?
- noir_lord 8y ago
  They don't, un-vaccinated children pose a danger to children who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. It's herd immunity but it only works if the vaccination rate is sufficiently high.
- tehlike 8y ago
  The problem is some people with weak immune system cannot be vaccinated. So it's also for protection of these people.
- SamBam 8y ago
  The generally pose the most danger to those either too young to be vaccinated, or who can't be vaccinated due to legitimate medical concerns. This is not uncommon, and such children rely on the herd immunity of their peers. Further, as few vaccines are 100% effective, the herd immunity also limits the exposure of viruses to those for whom the vaccine was ineffective.
  - RandomTisk 8y ago
    Makes sense, thanks.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- josephv 8y ago
  Vaccination doesn't 100% guarantee immunity, so there is always a % that isn't immune. Each disease requires a different % immunity to prevent a wide-spread outbreak, i.e. to provide herd immunity. For particularly aggressive diseases it requires 95ish% immunity to avoid an outbreak. So with anti-vaxxers increasing from roughly .5% to 1.5% over the last 10 years or so, that introduces a significant increase in the requirement of vaccination effectiveness, to the point where you wonder are we close to herd immunity breaking down. In places with significant anti-vax sentiments, such as ultra-orthodox religious practices you will get those larger outbreaks of things like measles. In general I think research indicates in the general populous anti-vaxxer populations are still small and disparate enough as to not impact herd immunity, but the trend has been upward due to the anti-vax trend over the last decade. [source] am married to an M.D. that specialized in microbiology, recently listened to a good NPR bit about it that dropped the statistics, and I stayed at a holiday inn express last night.
- WA 8y ago
  Who the fuck is downvoting the siblings here for no apparent reason? All of them are entirely correct. Have the anti-vaxxers invaded HN?
  - dang 8y ago
    This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please review and follow them here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
leconteur 8y ago
Seems like a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
tw04 8y ago
>For example, they must be required by law to publish all studies on drug safety-- both positive, and negative results. That's currently not required, they're allowed to cherry-pick results! Why? The alternatives in pretty much all cases are death. Which side effect is better than your child being dead? Or mine for that matter because the collective you (not you personally) decided that risking polio was better than the 1 in 10 billion chance you had an adverse reaction to a vaccine. We've literally eradicated diseases that could have wiped out the entire human race and now we've got idiots trying their hardest to bring them back. If parents want to have the "choice" to vaccinate their children, then they should also be held legally liable for ANYONE that gets sick as a result of that choice. Whether it's their own kid or an outbreak in the area they live.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > Which side effect is better than your child being dead? This is a very simplistic view given the probabilities involved. For a drastic example, consider a hypothetical treatment that can perfectly prevent a disease that would otherwise kill 1% of those who are treated, but it will blind 100% of them. It's hard to argue that this is a better outcome.
  - tw04 8y ago
    But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about available vaccines and none of them cause blindness. And the rates of death are far higher than 1%. The probabilities involved are ridiculously in favor of vaccination. Literally the exact opposite of what you claim. Making up completely ridiculous examples to just justify anti-vaxxer idiocy should stay on Facebook.
    - irondruid 8y ago
      << We're talking about available vaccines and none of them cause blindness. Quick Google Search: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22989339 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22989339
jedmeyers 8y ago
I agree. There are currently a lot of problems with vaccine development transparency and the chain of custody in handling of the vaccines is non existent. Yet someone is paying for this major social media propaganda push that anti-vaxxers are all low IQ deplorables who kill their own children. In parallel the fact that everyone should be forced to be vaccinated regardless of any other concerns is pushed as a sane rhetoric. Next thing they will be saying is that government conducting experiments on people (like the Tuskegee Study) never happened and it’s all just conspiracy theories.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  I don't know that it's paid for right now (though it could be, there is a huge financial upside). Do you have anything concrete for that assessment (as opposed to just angry/bored people on the internet looking for something to get mad about?) ?
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  "Yet someone is paying for this major social media propaganda push that anti-vaxxers are all low IQ deplorables who kill their own children." Why would people be paying for this? There are probably millions of people out there who would be willing to say something similar without payment.
  - new_guy 8y ago
    Because it ostracizes 'anti-vaxxers' as a group and creates a 'them' or 'us' mentality. Vaccines aren't 100% safe, there's been something like $4 billion paid out in compensation for them, and to get compensation you have to legally absolve them of liability and keep the media out of it! But by pushing the narrative and ridiculing anyone who asks legitimate questions the pharmaceutical companies bury that and no-one wants to be branded as an 'anti-vaxxer' so they keep their mouths shut. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... It's very similar to how the tobacco industry (and the sugar industry even earlier and the coal companies) manipulate the media take this study for example: ( https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/vaccines-autism?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/vaccines-autis... ) They studied 650,000 people. But injuries from vaccines are about 1 in one million, so the study was designed to fail but it got the press coverage! edit: formatting
RobertRoberts 8y ago
This would be a good start. For some reason there is this irrational belief that there are no side effects or ill-effects from vaccines. There are a number of doctors I have heard from that say vaccines can cause all kinds of debilitating side effects. But even "questioning" the status quo will get you down-votes, ridicule and draw ad homenim attacks.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  How many of those doctors lost licenses or were otherwise rebuked?
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    Here's two on youtube, do you think they present valid scientifically based views or should they be rebuked and/or have their licenses revoked? If you disagree with these doctors, why? Dr. Richard Halvorsen (England) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM Dr. Suzanne Humphries (USA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U

RandomTisk 8y ago

Me either, but I've always wondered: 3) What danger do un-vaccinated children pose to vaccinated ones?

noir_lord 8y ago
They don't, un-vaccinated children pose a danger to children who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. It's herd immunity but it only works if the vaccination rate is sufficiently high.
tehlike 8y ago
The problem is some people with weak immune system cannot be vaccinated. So it's also for protection of these people.
SamBam 8y ago
The generally pose the most danger to those either too young to be vaccinated, or who can't be vaccinated due to legitimate medical concerns. This is not uncommon, and such children rely on the herd immunity of their peers. Further, as few vaccines are 100% effective, the herd immunity also limits the exposure of viruses to those for whom the vaccine was ineffective.
- RandomTisk 8y ago
  Makes sense, thanks.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
josephv 8y ago
Vaccination doesn't 100% guarantee immunity, so there is always a % that isn't immune. Each disease requires a different % immunity to prevent a wide-spread outbreak, i.e. to provide herd immunity. For particularly aggressive diseases it requires 95ish% immunity to avoid an outbreak. So with anti-vaxxers increasing from roughly .5% to 1.5% over the last 10 years or so, that introduces a significant increase in the requirement of vaccination effectiveness, to the point where you wonder are we close to herd immunity breaking down. In places with significant anti-vax sentiments, such as ultra-orthodox religious practices you will get those larger outbreaks of things like measles. In general I think research indicates in the general populous anti-vaxxer populations are still small and disparate enough as to not impact herd immunity, but the trend has been upward due to the anti-vax trend over the last decade. [source] am married to an M.D. that specialized in microbiology, recently listened to a good NPR bit about it that dropped the statistics, and I stayed at a holiday inn express last night.
WA 8y ago
Who the fuck is downvoting the siblings here for no apparent reason? All of them are entirely correct. Have the anti-vaxxers invaded HN?
- dang 8y ago
  This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please review and follow them here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

leconteur 8y ago

Seems like a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

tw04 8y ago

>For example, they must be required by law to publish all studies on drug safety-- both positive, and negative results. That's currently not required, they're allowed to cherry-pick results! Why? The alternatives in pretty much all cases are death. Which side effect is better than your child being dead? Or mine for that matter because the collective you (not you personally) decided that risking polio was better than the 1 in 10 billion chance you had an adverse reaction to a vaccine. We've literally eradicated diseases that could have wiped out the entire human race and now we've got idiots trying their hardest to bring them back. If parents want to have the "choice" to vaccinate their children, then they should also be held legally liable for ANYONE that gets sick as a result of that choice. Whether it's their own kid or an outbreak in the area they live.

majewsky 8y ago
> Which side effect is better than your child being dead? This is a very simplistic view given the probabilities involved. For a drastic example, consider a hypothetical treatment that can perfectly prevent a disease that would otherwise kill 1% of those who are treated, but it will blind 100% of them. It's hard to argue that this is a better outcome.
- tw04 8y ago
  But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about available vaccines and none of them cause blindness. And the rates of death are far higher than 1%. The probabilities involved are ridiculously in favor of vaccination. Literally the exact opposite of what you claim. Making up completely ridiculous examples to just justify anti-vaxxer idiocy should stay on Facebook.
  - irondruid 8y ago
    << We're talking about available vaccines and none of them cause blindness. Quick Google Search: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22989339 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22989339

jedmeyers 8y ago

I agree. There are currently a lot of problems with vaccine development transparency and the chain of custody in handling of the vaccines is non existent. Yet someone is paying for this major social media propaganda push that anti-vaxxers are all low IQ deplorables who kill their own children. In parallel the fact that everyone should be forced to be vaccinated regardless of any other concerns is pushed as a sane rhetoric. Next thing they will be saying is that government conducting experiments on people (like the Tuskegee Study) never happened and it’s all just conspiracy theories.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
I don't know that it's paid for right now (though it could be, there is a huge financial upside). Do you have anything concrete for that assessment (as opposed to just angry/bored people on the internet looking for something to get mad about?) ?
bryanlarsen 8y ago
"Yet someone is paying for this major social media propaganda push that anti-vaxxers are all low IQ deplorables who kill their own children." Why would people be paying for this? There are probably millions of people out there who would be willing to say something similar without payment.
- new_guy 8y ago
  Because it ostracizes 'anti-vaxxers' as a group and creates a 'them' or 'us' mentality. Vaccines aren't 100% safe, there's been something like $4 billion paid out in compensation for them, and to get compensation you have to legally absolve them of liability and keep the media out of it! But by pushing the narrative and ridiculing anyone who asks legitimate questions the pharmaceutical companies bury that and no-one wants to be branded as an 'anti-vaxxer' so they keep their mouths shut. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... It's very similar to how the tobacco industry (and the sugar industry even earlier and the coal companies) manipulate the media take this study for example: ( https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/vaccines-autism?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/vaccines-autis... ) They studied 650,000 people. But injuries from vaccines are about 1 in one million, so the study was designed to fail but it got the press coverage! edit: formatting

RobertRoberts 8y ago

This would be a good start. For some reason there is this irrational belief that there are no side effects or ill-effects from vaccines. There are a number of doctors I have heard from that say vaccines can cause all kinds of debilitating side effects. But even "questioning" the status quo will get you down-votes, ridicule and draw ad homenim attacks.

anth_anm 8y ago
How many of those doctors lost licenses or were otherwise rebuked?
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  Here's two on youtube, do you think they present valid scientifically based views or should they be rebuked and/or have their licenses revoked? If you disagree with these doctors, why? Dr. Richard Halvorsen (England) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM Dr. Suzanne Humphries (USA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U