15 ms·

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 so

by mabbo 7y ago

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).

rpmisms 7y ago
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
- hanniabu 7y ago
  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.
- garyfirestorm 7y ago
  intelligent anti-vaxxer is an oxymoron
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Over simplification. Sometimes very intelligent people can convince themselves and others using very intelligent reasoning. You and I are also likely to do it from time to time, but hopefully in much less important matters. (Like which framework is good for what, which in the grand scheme of things often matters little compared to all the other problems we face.)
  - sdfsafsafafasf 7y ago
    Intelligent people who disagree with me is an oxymoron. I mean, honestly, do you think that vaccines are harm free panacea for all that ills humanity? One of the reasons that the anti-vaxxer movement is so dangerous is precisely because vaccines are dangerous and some people's bodies are intolerant to them (most obviously imuno compromised individuals).
    - rpmisms 7y ago
      Not to mention some people who have reactions to aluminium and/or MSG in some shots as well. These people do exist, and them being dismissed out of hand does not help anyone.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        Anti-vaxxer refers to refers to someone who rejects the mountains of data (often having no data analysis skills themselves) based upon their "feelings".
        vageli 7y ago
        > Anti-vaxxer refers to refers to someone who rejects the mountains of data (often having no data analysis skills themselves) based upon their "feelings". I thought it was someone against vaccination?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >intelligent anti-vaxxers Oxymoron.
- PerryCox 7y ago
  > intelligent anti-vaxxers No that's an oxymoron if I have ever seen one.
- DangerousPie 7y ago
  > I used to work for Andy Wakefield Interesting, what was that like? Did he actually believe all the claims he was making?
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    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.
    - emptybits 7y ago
      > 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efto1LpWkKw
      - rpmisms 7y ago
        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-Forgotten/dp/1480216895 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
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  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.
- grawprog 7y ago
  Meh
  - jac241 7y ago
    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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Replication https://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/flu-vaccine-saved-lives.htm 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 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25916341
  - rpedela 7y ago
    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.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    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.
- w56rjrtyu6ru 7y ago
  Did someone say that "intelligent anti-vaxxer" is an oxymoron yet?.
- sschueller 7y ago
  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.
  - Analemma_ 7y ago
    > 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.
    - sschueller 7y ago
      https://www.statista.com/statistics/265102/revenues-in-the-global-vaccine-market/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265102/revenues-in-the-g... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/merck-pfizer-sanofi-pasteur-and-glaxosmithkline-make-billions-from-shingrix-and-gardasil-vaccines.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/merck-pfizer-sanofi-pasteur-...
  - delfinom 7y ago
    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?
- magashna 7y ago
  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.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    I personally don't dismiss his work, but Linus Pauling is probably an example you would like.
    - magashna 7y ago
      I usually consider Ben Carson as a modern and well known example.
      - rpmisms 7y ago
        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.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        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.
        magashna 7y ago
        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!?"
yyyk 7y ago
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.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  > 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
  - yyyk 7y ago
    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.
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      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.
      - 7y ago
heavyset_go 7y ago
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.
- olouv 7y ago
  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.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index....), (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/emea-public-statement-thiomersal-containing-medicinal-products_en.pdf https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/...).
ridgeguy 7y ago
>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 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.
- olouv 7y ago
  > 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.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index....)
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    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?"
  - ridgeguy 7y ago
    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.
jimbob45 7y ago
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.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  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-all-endpoints-1b-study-what-does-mean-14306 https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/09/27/norovirus-vaccine-meets...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  You can already get flu vaccines as a nasal spray, I haven't heard of any impact on anti-vax attitudes.
  - jimbob45 7y ago
    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/flu-vaccine-which-type?page=2 https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/prevention-15/vaccines/f...
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    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.
sam36 7y ago
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 https://i.imgur.com/PdsJLLD.png [0]:https://vaccine.guide/ https://vaccine.guide/ [1]: https://tinyurl.com/y6ap37qo https://tinyurl.com/y6ap37qo
- TacticalTable 7y ago
  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.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  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?
olouv 7y ago
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%20brain&show=25&sortBy=relevance 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 https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018
- lymeeducator 7y ago
  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).
codeddesign 7y ago
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.
- redisman 7y ago
  Do you have some research to back up the dangers?
  - codeddesign 7y ago
    “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-products-is-it-safe http://www.wellnesstoday.com/beauty/phenoxyethanol-in-beauty... 2. https://www.healthline.com/health/phenoxyethanol 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.
- chmod775 7y ago
  > 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.
redisman 7y ago
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.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  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.
- frimsah 7y ago
  > 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.

by mabbo 7y ago

rpmisms 7y ago

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

hanniabu 7y ago
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.
garyfirestorm 7y ago
intelligent anti-vaxxer is an oxymoron
- jacobush 7y ago
  Over simplification. Sometimes very intelligent people can convince themselves and others using very intelligent reasoning. You and I are also likely to do it from time to time, but hopefully in much less important matters. (Like which framework is good for what, which in the grand scheme of things often matters little compared to all the other problems we face.)
- sdfsafsafafasf 7y ago
  Intelligent people who disagree with me is an oxymoron. I mean, honestly, do you think that vaccines are harm free panacea for all that ills humanity? One of the reasons that the anti-vaxxer movement is so dangerous is precisely because vaccines are dangerous and some people's bodies are intolerant to them (most obviously imuno compromised individuals).
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    Not to mention some people who have reactions to aluminium and/or MSG in some shots as well. These people do exist, and them being dismissed out of hand does not help anyone.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Anti-vaxxer refers to refers to someone who rejects the mountains of data (often having no data analysis skills themselves) based upon their "feelings".
      - vageli 7y ago
        > Anti-vaxxer refers to refers to someone who rejects the mountains of data (often having no data analysis skills themselves) based upon their "feelings". I thought it was someone against vaccination?
lotsofpulp 7y ago
>intelligent anti-vaxxers Oxymoron.
PerryCox 7y ago
> intelligent anti-vaxxers No that's an oxymoron if I have ever seen one.
DangerousPie 7y ago
> I used to work for Andy Wakefield Interesting, what was that like? Did he actually believe all the claims he was making?
- rpmisms 7y ago
  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.
  - emptybits 7y ago
    > 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efto1LpWkKw
    - rpmisms 7y ago
      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-Forgotten/dp/1480216895 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
slowmovintarget 7y ago
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.
grawprog 7y ago
Meh
- jac241 7y ago
  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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Replication https://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/flu-vaccine-saved-lives.htm 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 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25916341
- rpedela 7y ago
  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.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  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.
w56rjrtyu6ru 7y ago
Did someone say that "intelligent anti-vaxxer" is an oxymoron yet?.
sschueller 7y ago
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.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  > 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.
  - sschueller 7y ago
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/265102/revenues-in-the-global-vaccine-market/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265102/revenues-in-the-g... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/merck-pfizer-sanofi-pasteur-and-glaxosmithkline-make-billions-from-shingrix-and-gardasil-vaccines.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/merck-pfizer-sanofi-pasteur-...
- delfinom 7y ago
  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?
magashna 7y ago
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.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  I personally don't dismiss his work, but Linus Pauling is probably an example you would like.
  - magashna 7y ago
    I usually consider Ben Carson as a modern and well known example.
    - rpmisms 7y ago
      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.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        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.
        magashna 7y ago
        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!?"

yyyk 7y ago

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.

dev_dull 7y ago
> 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
- yyyk 7y ago
  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.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    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.
    - 7y ago

heavyset_go 7y ago

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.

olouv 7y ago
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.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index....), (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/emea-public-statement-thiomersal-containing-medicinal-products_en.pdf https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/...).

ridgeguy 7y ago

>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 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.

olouv 7y ago
> 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.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index....)
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  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?"
- ridgeguy 7y ago
  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.

jimbob45 7y ago

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.

Someone1234 7y ago
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-all-endpoints-1b-study-what-does-mean-14306 https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/09/27/norovirus-vaccine-meets...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lazyasciiart 7y ago
You can already get flu vaccines as a nasal spray, I haven't heard of any impact on anti-vax attitudes.
- jimbob45 7y ago
  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/flu-vaccine-which-type?page=2 https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/prevention-15/vaccines/f...
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  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.

sam36 7y ago

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 https://i.imgur.com/PdsJLLD.png [0]:https://vaccine.guide/ https://vaccine.guide/ [1]: https://tinyurl.com/y6ap37qo https://tinyurl.com/y6ap37qo

TacticalTable 7y ago
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.
gus_massa 7y ago
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?

olouv 7y ago

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%20brain&show=25&sortBy=relevance 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 https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018

lymeeducator 7y ago
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).

codeddesign 7y ago

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.

redisman 7y ago
Do you have some research to back up the dangers?
- codeddesign 7y ago
  “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-products-is-it-safe http://www.wellnesstoday.com/beauty/phenoxyethanol-in-beauty... 2. https://www.healthline.com/health/phenoxyethanol 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.
chmod775 7y ago
> 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.

redisman 7y ago

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.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
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.
frimsah 7y ago
> 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.