8 ms·

I've had the fun experience of debating with anti-vaccine people. Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a

I've had the fun experience of debating with anti-vaccine people. Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a matter of faith, the vaccines cause autism line keeps coming up. Unfortunately for us a condition that we don't really understand is far more prevalent than the side-effects of preventable diseases. I've never met anyone who's experienced post-polio syndrome or given birth to a child with congenital rubella. Alas I had measles myself, but I was too young to have been vaccinated. This coupled with our odd perception of risk leads to people abandoning something that demonstrably saves lives because of the minor risk of side-effects. Having done some minor work with autistic children it's certainly not as bad or as certain as the documented outcomes of disease. I don't think much will change people's minds until the diseases return, but I will be keeping up on the pro-vaccination side.

sliverstorm 13y ago
The folks who skip out on vaccination are (consciously or not) doing one or both of the following: 1) Counting on the herd immunity provided by everyone else to keep them safe 2) Pretending that the diseases which are being vaccinated against "really weren't all that bad" or maybe "didn't happen often"
- laughfactory 13y ago
  Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Not all vaccines are created equal--including some that are intended to solve for the same thing. And all too many who blab their opinion on pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do so with a minimum of research and evidence to support their opinion. Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks. As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
  - btilly 13y ago
    No, we are not overlooking that. Some of us have looked into the evidence and figured out that people who convince themselves that they are "intelligently selecting vaccinations" are in fact making poor choices. What do you say to someone making poor choices when you know their choices are poor, and they are so convinced they are right that they won't listen?
  - Volpe 13y ago
    Can you show me a "almost no benefit" vaccine that has "significant risks" that is currently in use? > Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. You say that as you pound your chest about "informed opinion" without providing any information... so it's just (uninformed) opinion (right now).
  - weland 13y ago
    > Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks. Can you provide some examples (three or four would be ok, that should count as "some") of these vaccines, backing your results with real, reputable research?
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research I disagree; the people I've encountered who claim to be making this kind of selection are not doing it based on current research. They're doing it based on (often slightly hysterical) websites, niche talk shows, celebrity opinion and op-ed pieces designed to sell newspapers. Doing it based on current research would require a great deal more effort, knowledge and time.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Pretty much all the data points I've ever seen used by such people have been false, and little more than excuses for their irrational choices.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Citation needed, and also important to share if you really believe that unicorns like this exist. >As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is. No, it's a fallacy to expect that the right answer must always be in the middle of two sides of an argument. The Law of Averages isn't really a law, it's a mistake.
broodbucket 13y ago
The paper saying that the MMR vaccine causes autism (which is where the whole concept came from) was fraudulent, so it's not just "well, a side effect is better than the disease", it's total misguidance. Also, here's an amusing Penn & Teller clip that shares your view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo
- Qantourisc 13y ago
  Depending on the decease this side-effect IS the better alternative. It's better to have 1 autism then 100 dead people. Unless you can know in advance who will develop side-effect, they should take their changes with dead.
  - CaptainZapp 13y ago
    Read up on the fraudulent research of ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield. There is no as in zero, none, zilch, nada evidence that vaccines is in any way related to autism. The reason why people still believe in a connection (apart from Wakefield's fraud) is that often when an infant gets the first shot this is about at the time when the first autism symptoms show. I'm not claiming that there are never bad side effects of vaccines (very rare) but autism is most certainly not one of them.
    - broodbucket 13y ago
      If nothing else, Wakefield has been a great example of the cost of scientific fraud. As a science major, I've had Wakefield drilled into me; befrauding a paper for money/fame/whatever leads to public opinion preventing herd immunity many years down the line, and indirectly, loss of lives. It's unbelievable.
einhverfr 13y ago
In the end, though, the fact is that if you require informed consent, some people won't. The question really is whether we go around battering people for their own good by poking them with needles or whether we respect the decisions regarding medical consent, whether those are right or wrong.
joshuahedlund 13y ago
Why would God protect from the measles but not the autism? (And I say this as a Christian who believes in healing) Yet while 'vaccine denialism' is often associated with the Religious Right, it's certainly not a prerequisite, because you can certainly find the same sentiments among the all-natural anti-GMO fringe Left, and before we had stories about Texas mega churches we had stories about affluent Californians[1] [1]http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/26/vaccine-exemptions-in-california-threate/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/26/vaccine-exempti...
- nl 13y ago
  Why would God protect from the measles but not the autism? That's a wonderful line.
  - joshuahedlund 13y ago
    Well, when your mind is made up you can explain anything - perhaps the autism is a punishment for not trusting in the original protection, etc, etc
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Indeed. If you want talk to them with their terms, you might have better luck with "God helps those who help themselves", though I doubt that will work in practice either.
      - joshuahedlund 13y ago
        Sure, but it's not like they're consistently anti-medicine, happily 'helping themselves' to cancer treatments and the rest (well, except for the oddly named Christian Science sect, but not the broader Bachmann-style evangelicals that are found overlapping with the anti-vaccine movement these days). It's almost like existing biases helped them succumb to the original fraud and helped them get stuck in it, so now they just truly believe that most medicine helps but vaccines cause autism. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be spreading across evangelicals as a whole.
6d0debc071 13y ago
> Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a matter of faith "God hasn't protected people of your faith historically, why do you think he's going to start now?"
- shawndumas 13y ago
  it sure didn't protect the original Apostles (if Foxe's Book of Martyrs is to be believed).
Steuard 13y ago
Personally, I've seen a lot more vaccination refusal among left-wing anti-corporate types than among the devoutly religious. That may be a function of my usual peer group, but to solve this problem it's going to be important to recognize how widespread it can be.
- dalke 13y ago
  The last big outbreak of polio in the US was among the Amish, in the 1970s. Historically, members of Christian Science have been against vaccinations (and other forms of medical treatment) since the Compulsory Vaccination Act in England in 1855. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Avoidance_of_vaccination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Avoidance_of_... .

sliverstorm 13y ago

The folks who skip out on vaccination are (consciously or not) doing one or both of the following: 1) Counting on the herd immunity provided by everyone else to keep them safe 2) Pretending that the diseases which are being vaccinated against "really weren't all that bad" or maybe "didn't happen often"

laughfactory 13y ago
Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Not all vaccines are created equal--including some that are intended to solve for the same thing. And all too many who blab their opinion on pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do so with a minimum of research and evidence to support their opinion. Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks. As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
- btilly 13y ago
  No, we are not overlooking that. Some of us have looked into the evidence and figured out that people who convince themselves that they are "intelligently selecting vaccinations" are in fact making poor choices. What do you say to someone making poor choices when you know their choices are poor, and they are so convinced they are right that they won't listen?
- Volpe 13y ago
  Can you show me a "almost no benefit" vaccine that has "significant risks" that is currently in use? > Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. You say that as you pound your chest about "informed opinion" without providing any information... so it's just (uninformed) opinion (right now).
- weland 13y ago
  > Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks. Can you provide some examples (three or four would be ok, that should count as "some") of these vaccines, backing your results with real, reputable research?
- EliRivers 13y ago
  Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research I disagree; the people I've encountered who claim to be making this kind of selection are not doing it based on current research. They're doing it based on (often slightly hysterical) websites, niche talk shows, celebrity opinion and op-ed pieces designed to sell newspapers. Doing it based on current research would require a great deal more effort, knowledge and time.
- Nursie 13y ago
  Pretty much all the data points I've ever seen used by such people have been false, and little more than excuses for their irrational choices.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Citation needed, and also important to share if you really believe that unicorns like this exist. >As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is. No, it's a fallacy to expect that the right answer must always be in the middle of two sides of an argument. The Law of Averages isn't really a law, it's a mistake.

broodbucket 13y ago

The paper saying that the MMR vaccine causes autism (which is where the whole concept came from) was fraudulent, so it's not just "well, a side effect is better than the disease", it's total misguidance. Also, here's an amusing Penn & Teller clip that shares your view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

Qantourisc 13y ago
Depending on the decease this side-effect IS the better alternative. It's better to have 1 autism then 100 dead people. Unless you can know in advance who will develop side-effect, they should take their changes with dead.
- CaptainZapp 13y ago
  Read up on the fraudulent research of ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield. There is no as in zero, none, zilch, nada evidence that vaccines is in any way related to autism. The reason why people still believe in a connection (apart from Wakefield's fraud) is that often when an infant gets the first shot this is about at the time when the first autism symptoms show. I'm not claiming that there are never bad side effects of vaccines (very rare) but autism is most certainly not one of them.
  - broodbucket 13y ago
    If nothing else, Wakefield has been a great example of the cost of scientific fraud. As a science major, I've had Wakefield drilled into me; befrauding a paper for money/fame/whatever leads to public opinion preventing herd immunity many years down the line, and indirectly, loss of lives. It's unbelievable.

einhverfr 13y ago

In the end, though, the fact is that if you require informed consent, some people won't. The question really is whether we go around battering people for their own good by poking them with needles or whether we respect the decisions regarding medical consent, whether those are right or wrong.

joshuahedlund 13y ago

Why would God protect from the measles but not the autism? (And I say this as a Christian who believes in healing) Yet while 'vaccine denialism' is often associated with the Religious Right, it's certainly not a prerequisite, because you can certainly find the same sentiments among the all-natural anti-GMO fringe Left, and before we had stories about Texas mega churches we had stories about affluent Californians[1] [1]http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/26/vaccine-exemptions-in-california-threate/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/26/vaccine-exempti...

nl 13y ago
Why would God protect from the measles but not the autism? That's a wonderful line.
- joshuahedlund 13y ago
  Well, when your mind is made up you can explain anything - perhaps the autism is a punishment for not trusting in the original protection, etc, etc
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Indeed. If you want talk to them with their terms, you might have better luck with "God helps those who help themselves", though I doubt that will work in practice either.
    - joshuahedlund 13y ago
      Sure, but it's not like they're consistently anti-medicine, happily 'helping themselves' to cancer treatments and the rest (well, except for the oddly named Christian Science sect, but not the broader Bachmann-style evangelicals that are found overlapping with the anti-vaccine movement these days). It's almost like existing biases helped them succumb to the original fraud and helped them get stuck in it, so now they just truly believe that most medicine helps but vaccines cause autism. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be spreading across evangelicals as a whole.

6d0debc071 13y ago

> Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a matter of faith "God hasn't protected people of your faith historically, why do you think he's going to start now?"

shawndumas 13y ago
it sure didn't protect the original Apostles (if Foxe's Book of Martyrs is to be believed).

Steuard 13y ago

Personally, I've seen a lot more vaccination refusal among left-wing anti-corporate types than among the devoutly religious. That may be a function of my usual peer group, but to solve this problem it's going to be important to recognize how widespread it can be.

dalke 13y ago
The last big outbreak of polio in the US was among the Amish, in the 1970s. Historically, members of Christian Science have been against vaccinations (and other forms of medical treatment) since the Compulsory Vaccination Act in England in 1855. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Avoidance_of_vaccination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Avoidance_of_... .