FDA Head: Anti-Vaxxers Could Soon Cause an Epidemic

TheShadowLord

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,329
974
320
https://futurism.com/fda-anti-vaxxers-cause-epidemic

Shots Shots Shots
According to FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, the one single thing that would vastly improve the healthcare system is if people would get vaccinated.

Otherwise, Gottlieb told Business Insider, America could find itself in the midst of an epidemic of dangerous, preventable diseases that have already started to resurface thanks to anti-vaxxers.

“It’s not going to be a gradual evolution towards the resurgence of certain diseases that were once vanquished,” Gottlieb told BI. “It’s going to be all of a sudden, we’re going to see epidemics and maybe worse than that.”

Die Antwoord
Anti-vaxxers, deemed one of the greatest public health threats on Earth by the World Health Organization, are people who ignore the mountain of scientific evidence establishing that vaccines are a safe and effective way to prevent dangerous diseases like polio and measles. Many cite the thoroughly-debunked myth that vaccines cause autism spectrum disorder as justification to not vaccinate themselves, their children, or even their pets.

The anti-vaxxer movement has already led to 120 cases of measles in the U.S. in this year alone. And if people don’t get with the program, Gottlieb told BI that the problem could get worse.

Loopholes
Because vaccination requirements are determined at the state level, people in some areas have been able to avoid vaccinating their children by exploiting loopholes in local law.

Though Gottlieb is poised to retire in the next few weeks, he suggested to BI that some problems caused by anti-vaxxers could be prevented by taking a closer look at those exemptions and tightening regulations.

“You see complacency around some of the achievements that we’ve made, and declining willingness, or even confidence in, some of the products that have vanquished a lot of human illness,” Gottlieb told BI.
 

Cunth

Fingerlickin' Good!
May 22, 2018
2,675
6,525
495
I’m waiting for the loony left to take up the anti-vax cause
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,072
15,388
665
USA
dunpachi.com
I knew people who were anti-vaxx. It sucks because they truly believe they're helping to stop a problem by taking that stance.

However, I don't think the situation is as dire as people paint it. We have numerous safeguards and options available to handle outbreaks of disease. Doesn't it stand to reason that as population increases, and as education degrades, the poorer members of society will conclude really stupid things. For example, they'll believe really stupid things like vaccinations are the cause of disease or that vaccinations are like playing Russian roulette with your child's life.

So instead of resorting to authoritarian measures, wouldn't this be an educational issue to slowly weed out over time? :pie_thinking:
 

Acerac

Member
May 20, 2007
10,187
561
950
I'm all vaxxed up and whatnot, but are illegal immigrants getting vaccinations more frequently than the average American? If not the focus seems strange.
 

DiscoJer

Member
Sep 26, 2009
11,883
416
725
St. Louis
It's really not an educational issue though, but deliberate ignorance. It's not unlike people who are against GMO food or nuclear power, they are convinced that deep in their heart they know those things are evil and opposing them is good, even though opposing GMO foods condemns millions in 3rd world countries to starvation and blindness and nuclear power is the one way to solve our energy problems without fossil fuels (and if not for the hysteria 40 years ago, we have burned a lot less coal).
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,668
3,269
1,090
It's really not an educational issue though, but deliberate ignorance. It's not unlike people who are against GMO food or nuclear power, they are convinced that deep in their heart they know those things are evil and opposing them is good, even though opposing GMO foods condemns millions in 3rd world countries to starvation and blindness and nuclear power is the one way to solve our energy problems without fossil fuels (and if not for the hysteria 40 years ago, we have burned a lot less coal).
Let's suppose that vaccines do cause autism. Even if one child in a million did develop autism FSA a result of being vaccinayed, it could be of any severity from mild to severe. On the other hand, polio and the like are almost always physically crippling/lethal.

It is better for a child to get AS than to end up a 4 ft contorted hunchback in steel leg braces for the rest of their life. Not to mention every incidence of these exterminated diseases coming back risks them mutating to the point where everyone else's vaccines are ineffective. All it takes is one frame shift and the antigen can be disabled.
 

zelo-ca

Member
Jan 26, 2018
934
1,008
200
I wonder when the regressive left will add Anti-vaxxers into their group of victims. It's only a matter of time.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,531
272
690
I wonder when the regressive left will add Anti-vaxxers into their group of victims. It's only a matter of time.
I don't think you have to worry about "the left" placating anti vax sensibilities. The "liberal wasteland" states like New York, California, Washington are making vaccines fully mandatory - no longer up to the parent.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
219
134
185
Natural selection.
I agree its probably best to do nothing and if people die it isn't the governments role to protect people from themselves.

So why is it a big threat?

If it was a big threat the US would wage war against them like they have done on so many other ideas. They can take a few pages from the very successful wars on drugs and terrorism.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,049
8,432
1,450
I agree its probably best to do nothing and if people die it isn't the governments role to protect people from themselves.

So why is it a big threat?

If it was a big threat the US would wage war against them like they have done on so many other ideas. They can take a few pages from the very successful wars on drugs and terrorism.
A small percentage of the population don't become successfully inoculated by vaccinations (and some vaccines have lower efficacy rates, e.g. flu), and children and the elderly have weaker immune systems. Herd immunity protects those groups from deadly diseases, and prevents widespread outbreaks.

https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
219
134
185
But I though the solution was to let the weak die? If they choose to not do it what else can regulators do? I'm all for stronger humans
 
Last edited:

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
657
398
255
What does the left have to do with anti vaxxers? they are the ones that believe in science? Could be wrong though
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,049
8,432
1,450
But I though the solution was to let the weak die? If they choose to not do it what else can regulators do?
Not the weak; the hopelessly indoctrinated. There's not much that can be done to convince anti-vaxxers since they've closed their minds to science and evidence. It's important to understand the dire consequences of that position and why vaccinations are important, for your own loved ones and the people around them that they protect by getting their vaccines.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
219
134
185
Not the weak; the hopelessly indoctrinated. There's not much that can be done to convince anti-vaxxers since they've closed their minds to science and evidence. It's important to understand the dire consequences of that position and why vaccinations are important, for your own loved ones and the people around them that they protect by getting their vaccines.
Isn't that the same thing? Weak is subjective. And you admit it is a believe it isn't a logical thing. How do humans regulate beliefs? If you can't do anything about it what is to be worried about? Maybe the natural selection and best thing for the planet is to let them not vaccinate.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
219
134
185
Yeah I think cities are bad for a lot of things. Energy, disease, garbage, food. I think more and more people will move out of them . Its reverse industrial revolution. When everything can be delivered by drone why do we need to live close.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,049
8,432
1,450
Isn't that the same thing? Weak is subjective. And you admit it is a believe it isn't a logical thing. How do humans regulate beliefs? If you can't do anything about it what is to be worried about? Maybe the natural selection and best thing for the planet is to let them not vaccinate.
No, it's not the same thing. People who choose to forego vaccinations are making a self-destructive personal choice that also harms others. People with compromised immune systems, e.g. children and the elderly, are not choosing that. Last I checked we strive to protect those groups from undue harm.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
219
134
185
So what do government/people/community do with the anti vaxxers?

Last I checked we strive to protect those groups from undue harm.
Maybe in your opinion I think western society treats these groups horribly. The lease of which has to do with vaccines. Children shouldn't sit in school all day and elderly don't deserve to be put into communities and be forgotten.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
2,391
4,503
230
Let's suppose that vaccines do cause autism. Even if one child in a million did develop autism FSA a result of being vaccinayed, it could be of any severity from mild to severe. On the other hand, polio and the like are almost always physically crippling/lethal.
According to something posted to Instagram by Robert F Kennedy Jr, 400 kids died per year due to the measles, while 80,000 are diagnosed with autism. I'll go see if I can find it...

Edit: Here it is.
 
Last edited:

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
Going the authoritarian route isn't going to work. People just circle the wagons when you draw this much attention and try to make it into a bigger "crisis" than it actually is. I am not an "anti-vaxxer" but I know some people in and around this 'community' and none of them that I've come across are actually zealots (well, maybe one of them is but I digress). They want more rigorous safety testing, and they're not entirely wrong in that the government and pharma haven't done a great job providing any guarantees that tripling or quadrupling the schedule over the past 30 years has been completely problem-free. Especially when, conveniently, the government removed any and all legal liability from vaccine manufacturers around that time right before the CDC schedule started ballooning.

And then instead of educating, the priority seems to be demonizing. What are we gonna do, roundup all the anti-vaxxers and forcibly inject them? I thought this was America (no, seriously). And it really seems like they use paid trolls. Unless I'm to believe there is an army of random coincidental soccer moms out there that immediately mobilize in any comment section of any article, etc, to spout all the exact same buzzwords and arguments verbatim. And the hysterical media coverage does them no favors either. 100 cases of measles with no deaths isn't a crisis, I'm sorry. And Adam Schiff now pushing to convince big tech to start censoring "antivaxxer propaganda". These people should learn about the Streisand Effect.

There has to be a better way forward.
 
Dec 3, 2018
2,391
4,503
230
I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I believe vaccines work, and work well. I understand the risks associated with them and vaccinated both of my children without any issues. I think that people should get vaccinated for the most dangerous contagious diseases. I just don't know that they need to get vaccinated for all of them.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that there is something dirty going on with vaccinations. I don't know anyone who trusts Big Pharma even remotely, and yet when it comes to vaccinations, there's this big blind spot there because I guess we solved Polio this one time. So naturally, the HPV vaccine is just like that, right? Just as safe. Just as tested. Just as effective. It must be, right? Except the HPV vaccine may actually increase the chance of cervical cancer by a statistically significant amount. And because it worked really well this one time, why don't we now give kids 50 vaccination shots within the span of 10 years, because why not? What's the worst that could happen? They don't know because they never bothered to study it.

There's this appeal to emotion that I keep seeing in discussions like these that try to paint people as bad people who are inflicting harm on other people's children because of the dissolution of herd immunity, but that argument has always made me suspicious. First of all, appeals to emotion have never set well with me. Not being swayed by emotion, I find that these kinds of arguments, made without other arguments to support them, to be kind of shallow. And I think if you look at the debate topics that most often employ these kinds of arguments, well, it's not generally good company. Thinking that I'm a monster for disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. It doesn't mean you are wrong either. It doesn't mean anything.

Second, the logic doesn't work out. It's kind of like saying that because some people are allergic to peanuts, nobody should ever eat anything with peanut butter. How much of their health issues are everybody else's responsibility? And when you think about it, the unvaccinated people are in the same boat. It's more like saying, some people are allergic to peanuts, so you shouldn't be allergic to peanuts either. I mean, these parents have literally decided that this course of action is appropriate for their own child, whom they love with all their heart and decided, with love, that this was in their best interest - why would some stranger's child being in the exact same situation somehow convince them to change their mind?

There's some strange, shady things going on in Big Pharma with vaccinations. I'm not anti-vaccination, but considering all the other things that Big Pharma is responsible for (price gouging epi-pens, the opioid epidemic, drugs making it to market without proper testing, fighting against universal healthcare), why should they suddenly become responsible and trustworthy in this area? They aren't. And the thing that amazes me the most about all this is that scores of parents are going "show me the data on the safety of these vaccinations" and instead of showing that data, or going and getting it when they don't have it, they are instead spending millions, if not billions, on tv commercials and bribing politicians and doctors to make vaccinations mandatory. Instead of answering the call for help, they are trying to drown it out so that nobody else can hear it.

Some anti-vaxxers are crazy. But there are some very sane, critical people who are being unfairly lumped into this group. It's like saying "Why is small patch of land in the middle of nowhere censored from Google Maps?" and being lumped in with the Flat Earthers. It's bizarre, but that's just what online discourse has become.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,049
8,432
1,450
The anti-vax scare started from a hoax by Andrew Wakefield that has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community.

There's no mechanism of action for autism to be triggered by vaccinations. Lots of disorders, including autism, are diagnosed in vastly larger numbers per capita now because we have different standards by which we identify them.

These vaccines aren't maximally lucrative for Big Pharma by any means. They want rapidly iterative, expensive treatments for chronic illnesses sitting behind patents. They'd be better off letting everyone get Smallpox and Measles and Polio.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,531
272
690
Second, the logic doesn't work out. It's kind of like saying that because some people are allergic to peanuts, nobody should ever eat anything with peanut butter. How much of their health issues are everybody else's responsibility? And when you think about it, the unvaccinated people are in the same boat. It's more like saying, some people are allergic to peanuts, so you shouldn't be allergic to peanuts either. I mean, these parents have literally decided that this course of action is appropriate for their own child, whom they love with all their heart and decided, with love, that this was in their best interest - why would some stranger's child being in the exact same situation somehow convince them to change their mind?
Because they are incorrect. You spent a paragraph talking about appeals to emotion being devoid of logic, then cite a parent's unconditional love for their child and their best interest being the driving force behind them not getting vaccinated as a position to respect on the same grounds. You cannot have it both ways, especially in framing it as just a personal decision that doesn't have any impact on others.
 
Last edited:

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,107
512
430
Reading, Berkshire
I’m waiting for the loony left to take up the anti-vax cause
But isn't it mostly conservative majority communities who are trying to pass laws to allow for anti-vaxxing to be seen as okay and the "loony left" the ones trying to make vaccination a mandatory thing?
 
Dec 3, 2018
2,391
4,503
230
The anti-vax scare started from a hoax by Andrew Wakefield that has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community.
The autism link, sure. I'm not talking about autism. I'm talking about things like the HPV vaccine, which the company that makes it has spent millions of dollars convincing doctors in some states that it should be mandatory.

There's no mechanism of action for autism to be triggered by vaccinations. Lots of disorders, including autism, are diagnosed in vastly larger numbers per capita now because we have different standards by which we identify them.
I don't think it is that simple. While I don't think vaccines cause autism, the increase in the rate of autism can not be adequately explained away by changes in diagnosing standards. It makes a difference, but the increase is way, way bigger than that can explain (according to the CDC, autism is now diagnosed at a rate of 1 in 50 children). It a massive epidemic that doesn't affect all countries or populations equally, so there is definitely something causing it - we just don't know what. It could be any number of environmental factors in precisely the wrong moment that causes it.

One thing I read from one of the anti-vaxxer websites is that one researcher believed that vaccines caused autism, but not directly. He did some study where he found that a high fever at a particular developmental phase of growth was associated with a higher incidence rate of autism (not 1-to-1, but a relationship). This developmental phase overlapped with when vaccines were given to children, and vaccines give fevers as a side effect of the body learning to fight the deactivated disease. It's not something you can test about the vaccine itself.

Now, I don't know whether to trust this guy, and given the place where I read about him, the skeptic in me says, "better if I don't", but I do think the actual cause of autism is going to be something similar. A simple coincidence that happens slightly more often than it used to due to something we are doing to the children, or to their environment. It's like how childhood leukemia is higher in upper middle class neighborhoods because the amount of anti-bacterial soap causes the children's immune systems to developer later and weaker as a result. Something simple and stupid like that. There's a missed semi-colon somewhere, to put it in programming terms.

These vaccines aren't maximally lucrative for Big Pharma by any means. They want rapidly iterative, expensive treatments for chronic illnesses sitting behind patents. They'd be better off letting everyone get Smallpox and Measles and Polio.
What you aren't factoring in is that they are lobbying for these vaccines to be mandatory, which means every child will have them, compared to a much smaller percentage that would end up with these diseases. Only 1 in a 1000 children who contract measles will get sick enough to be hospitalized with brain inflammation, while a vaccination that is required by 100% of the children that has multiple shots over several years... well, the profits are made in bulk. Many states subsidize vaccination costs too, which means they can get away with charging more. Also, Smallpox, Measles, and Polio are not chronic illnesses, but can result in lifelong impairments (many of which would be treated through therapy rather than drugs).

Because they are incorrect. You spent a paragraph talking about appeals to emotion being devoid of logic, then cite a parent's unconditional love for their child and their best interest being the driving force behind them not getting vaccinated as a position to respect on the same grounds. You cannot have it both ways, especially in framing it as just a personal decision that doesn't have any impact on others.
Huh? I'm not appealing to YOUR emotions. Just mentioning that emotions exist isn't an appeal to emotions. I'm explaining that the parents considered not vaccinating as the best course action for their own children, whom I have to assume they have a vested interest in not dying, so the argument that other random, theoretical children are in danger for being in the exact same situation won't exactly make for a compelling argument.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,575
1,028
1,135
Best Coast
But isn't it mostly conservative majority communities who are trying to pass laws to allow for anti-vaxxing to be seen as okay and the "loony left" the ones trying to make vaccination a mandatory thing?
My observations make out the major anti-vax groups to be:

religious fundamentalists put faith in their god to heal them, or have some sort of religious aversion to modern medicine.

hippie types who don't trust big pharma or corporations in general.

run of the mill idiots.

It's not really a hard and fast left/right divide. It's a huge venn diagram of lunacy.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
3,013
1,284
300
Finland
I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I believe vaccines work, and work well. I understand the risks associated with them and vaccinated both of my children without any issues. I think that people should get vaccinated for the most dangerous contagious diseases. I just don't know that they need to get vaccinated for all of them.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that there is something dirty going on with vaccinations. I don't know anyone who trusts Big Pharma even remotely, and yet when it comes to vaccinations, there's this big blind spot there because I guess we solved Polio this one time. So naturally, the HPV vaccine is just like that, right? Just as safe. Just as tested. Just as effective. It must be, right? Except the HPV vaccine may actually increase the chance of cervical cancer by a statistically significant amount. And because it worked really well this one time, why don't we now give kids 50 vaccination shots within the span of 10 years, because why not? What's the worst that could happen? They don't know because they never bothered to study it.

There's this appeal to emotion that I keep seeing in discussions like these that try to paint people as bad people who are inflicting harm on other people's children because of the dissolution of herd immunity, but that argument has always made me suspicious. First of all, appeals to emotion have never set well with me. Not being swayed by emotion, I find that these kinds of arguments, made without other arguments to support them, to be kind of shallow. And I think if you look at the debate topics that most often employ these kinds of arguments, well, it's not generally good company. Thinking that I'm a monster for disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. It doesn't mean you are wrong either. It doesn't mean anything.

Second, the logic doesn't work out. It's kind of like saying that because some people are allergic to peanuts, nobody should ever eat anything with peanut butter. How much of their health issues are everybody else's responsibility? And when you think about it, the unvaccinated people are in the same boat. It's more like saying, some people are allergic to peanuts, so you shouldn't be allergic to peanuts either. I mean, these parents have literally decided that this course of action is appropriate for their own child, whom they love with all their heart and decided, with love, that this was in their best interest - why would some stranger's child being in the exact same situation somehow convince them to change their mind?

There's some strange, shady things going on in Big Pharma with vaccinations. I'm not anti-vaccination, but considering all the other things that Big Pharma is responsible for (price gouging epi-pens, the opioid epidemic, drugs making it to market without proper testing, fighting against universal healthcare), why should they suddenly become responsible and trustworthy in this area? They aren't. And the thing that amazes me the most about all this is that scores of parents are going "show me the data on the safety of these vaccinations" and instead of showing that data, or going and getting it when they don't have it, they are instead spending millions, if not billions, on tv commercials and bribing politicians and doctors to make vaccinations mandatory. Instead of answering the call for help, they are trying to drown it out so that nobody else can hear it.

Some anti-vaxxers are crazy. But there are some very sane, critical people who are being unfairly lumped into this group. It's like saying "Why is small patch of land in the middle of nowhere censored from Google Maps?" and being lumped in with the Flat Earthers. It's bizarre, but that's just what online discourse has become.
This is pretty much exactly how I see it.

I can't blame anti-vaxxers from becoming paranoid when stuff like the swine flu vaccine causing narcolepsy really happened. The reality is that we really are blindly trusting vaccines being ok. Most people in the world have zero idea what the vaccines have in them and what are the mechanisms that make them work, but we trust the doctors that they know what they are doing and that they themselves wouldn't and couldn't ever be fooled either by whoever are their bosses. Sure, we don't understand what surgeons are doing either and we trust them to cut ourselves open when something needs to be done in your inner organs, but correcting something that is already wrong has less grounds for paranoia than letting people do something to us in advance. Like, I wouldn't understand if someone would oppose to have your inflamed appendix to be removed, but I would understand someone opposing if surgeries would become things that are done in advance "just in case."

I'm not an anti-vaxxer and if I had children I would definitely have them be vaccinated especially when they are young, but I don't think people should be forced to be vaccinated for some yearly flu epidemics and I understand some of the mindset people who don't trust vaccines have. I'm not paranoid about them but I get why some might be.
 

Ryujin

Member
Dec 28, 2006
1,113
155
1,020
I'm not Anti-Vax by any stretch of the imagination, I think @Sqorin Hammerfarf brings up some good points.

Moving in a slightly tinfoil hat direction I wonder if the US or other governments have in the past or present experimented with putting things into the vaccines to test the effects on the local populace either domestically or abroad or possibly in an isolated subset of a population as a "test group"?

Just to be clear, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't believe this is actually happening in a general sense but if some report came out tomorrow that said some government (US or otherwise) was/is doing this somewhere to experiment with something or other I wouldn't be 100% surprised. Does that make sense or am I coming across as crazy?

The reason being that vaccines, especially mandatory vaccines would be the perfect vector of attack for something nefarious. I mean who wouldn't want their child vaccinated to protect against horrible diseases?

Of course I'm not advocating anyone actually act as if this is happening or not get their kids vaccinated but there are probably a not insignificant number of people out there who use this type of thinking as a justification for not having their kids vaccinated, a distrust of the government or "establishment".

Interesting thought experiment but I'm 100% not saying this is what I think is happening or that I am against vaccines. Just need to be clear on that before people run with it as some kind of narrative.
 

Acerac

Member
May 20, 2007
10,187
561
950
I like the extremely thought out criticisms of the current state of affairs followed with people stating how dumb anyone who would criticize big pharma is.

The contrast is fascinating.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,072
15,388
665
USA
dunpachi.com
I like the extremely thought out criticisms of the current state of affairs followed with people stating how dumb anyone who would criticize big pharma is.

The contrast is fascinating.
Don't confuse "criticizing big pharma" with "rejecting medical science that predates Western big pharma by at least 60 years".
 
Dec 3, 2018
2,391
4,503
230
Don't confuse "criticizing big pharma" with "rejecting medical science that predates Western big pharma by at least 60 years".
Part of my problem with the pro-vaxxer platform is that this is exactly what is happening. There’s very little room for discussion on this matter because any form of dissent gets you grouped in with Jenny McCarthy. It makes discussion on vaccinations into a circle jerk where everybody is falling over each other to say how awful anti-vaxxers are, and how much smarter they are (and if they had kids, they’d totally vaccinate them). It’s just... I really think that if a thread reads too much like something you’d find on ResetEra, it’s time to step back and reconsider (if not your position, at least how you engage with people who hold a different one).

I mean, just look at comments like:
The Anti-Vax movement is the smoking gun proof that people really have gotten stupider in recent years.
First, that’s not an argument. Second, that leaves no room for people to have a discussion. And third, that is unnecessarily mean for no reason except to puff up one’s own sense of self worth.

I’d be surprised if Packard, here, even knew what the average anti-vaxxer’s beliefs really are, instead choosing some cartoon version of them of them to lord over. Most anti-vaxxers that I’ve read things from are WAY more read up on vaccines than most pro-vaxxers. Don’t confuse their disagreement with ignorance. Most of the mistakes they make come from a confirmation bias driven by an anxiety that is entirely understandable. They aren’t biologists, and they aren’t coming from a rational place - mistakes are made. But not because they are stupid.

While I don’t think the mercury in vaccines causes autism, I very much understand the concern they have for their children and the overwhelming desire they have to protect them. All parents do. I think it is an incredible mistake to paint these people as stupid or as child abusers, if for no other reason than whatever middle ground you could have (like getting them to use SOME vaccinations or to read material that you suggest) is immediately and irrevocably lost.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,072
15,388
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Part of my problem with the pro-vaxxer platform is that this is exactly what is happening. There’s very little room for discussion on this matter because any form of dissent gets you grouped in with Jenny McCarthy. It makes discussion on vaccinations into a circle jerk where everybody is falling over each other to say how awful anti-vaxxers are, and how much smarter they are (and if they had kids, they’d totally vaccinate them). It’s just... I really think that if a thread reads too much like something you’d find on ResetEra, it’s time to step back and reconsider (if not your position, at least how you engage with people who hold a different one).

I mean, just look at comments like:

First, that’s not an argument. Second, that leaves no room for people to have a discussion. And third, that is unnecessarily mean for no reason except to puff up one’s own sense of self worth.

I’d be surprised if Packard, here, even knew what the average anti-vaxxer’s beliefs really are, instead choosing some cartoon version of them of them to lord over. Most anti-vaxxers that I’ve read things from are WAY more read up on vaccines than most pro-vaxxers. Don’t confuse their disagreement with ignorance. Most of the mistakes they make come from a confirmation bias driven by an anxiety that is entirely understandable. They aren’t biologists, and they aren’t coming from a rational place - mistakes are made. But not because they are stupid.

While I don’t think the mercury in vaccines causes autism, I very much understand the concern they have for their children and the overwhelming desire they have to protect them. All parents do. I think it is an incredible mistake to paint these people as stupid or as child abusers, if for no other reason than whatever middle ground you could have (like getting them to use SOME vaccinations or to read material that you suggest) is immediately and irrevocably lost.
It's a microcosm of our cultural malaise. People are so hungry for "truth" that when they discover something they believe has been hidden, suppressed, etc they latch on to it and fight you if you try to get them to let go. It takes advantage of our natural curiosity as well as our traditional American suspicion of authority.

So when impressionable people stumble upon a conspiracy that vaccines are harmful for you -- or that fluoride/cholorine in the water is bad, or that the court system is secretly built upon Maritime Law, or that the gov't is stocking giant plastic FEMA coffins -- what will your takeaway be? Will it be to ask society at large if this is true, or will you latch onto it and begin the spiral into fringe conspiracies and cults?

Vaccines harm and kill a non-zero number of children.
Big pharma is corrupt.
The government and big pharma have told us lies about health in the past.

These three statements are all correct. It's not a very far step to say "therefore, vaccines should be avoided", even though the conclusion is ultimately false.
 
Last edited:

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
Okay, a lot to respond to since I made my half-asleep post at midnight.

These vaccines aren't maximally lucrative for Big Pharma by any means. They want rapidly iterative, expensive treatments for chronic illnesses sitting behind patents. They'd be better off letting everyone get Smallpox and Measles and Polio.
Sqorin adequately addressed this I think, but I'll comment anyway. I'm not sure that's entirely relevant. Most of the diseases we vaccinate against are acute and not chronic. I can't see this benefiting pharma nearly as much as a GUARANTEED $8bn annual revenue stream that is defacto-mandatory and entirely shielded from any legal liability in the case of adverse events (which absolutely do happen; the secret government vaccine court has paid out over $4bn since its inception, the majority of which is skewed more towards recent years).

The autism link, sure. I'm not talking about autism.
There's plenty to talk about even if never mentioning autism at all; agreed. However the RFK, Jr. link you posted does raise an interesting analysis that I'd love to see the pro-mandatory-vaccine camp respond to with something other than, "STFU it's been debunked," or, "Wakefield is a fraud," or "You're stupid." (I'm referring to the respected pediatrician who analyzed 15,000 children from his network of practices and found autism incidence to be much higher when following the CDC schedule than not.)

I'm explaining that the parents considered not vaccinating as the best course action for their own children, whom I have to assume they have a vested interest in not dying, so the argument that other random, theoretical children are in danger for being in the exact same situation won't exactly make for a compelling argument.
Well, the idea here isn't that they're making an appeal to emotion to anti-vaxxers. I see this issue as a bell curve. You have the 1-5% that have issues, and claim exemptions, etc. You have the 1-5% that goes absolutely apeshit about this issue on the pro-vax side. Then you have the 90% in the middle that don't really know a whole lot about the issue, most of which vaccinate on time and on schedule BUT don't harbor utter disdain for anyone who dares question any of the orthodoxy. THIS is the group at which the appeal to emotion is aimed. To rally support among that 90%, to bring more of them over into the 1-5% "goes apeshit about this" group so that it'll be easier to pass legislation doing things like removing relatively little-used exemptions.

Instead of spending their money making sure the holdouts have every reason to come over to their side, they spend their money vilifying and demonizing, and lobbying government to strip rights away.

The Anti-Vax movement is the smoking gun proof that people really have gotten stupider in recent years.
And as Sqorin pointed out, this is a problem. You have people like Sqorin and myself who are not necessarily anti-vaxxers, but put forth good faith, well thought out arguments, at which point the other 'side' says something like this.

"I really think that if a thread reads too much like something you’d find on ResetEra, it’s time to step back and reconsider (if not your position, at least how you engage with people who hold a different one). "

Bingo..

I like the extremely thought out criticisms of the current state of affairs followed with people stating how dumb anyone who would criticize big pharma is.

The contrast is fascinating.
This is what has always gotten me as well. Most people don't trust big pharma. It's well established via polling. And the revolving door between big pharma and big government (CDC, etc) is also well established and documented. But with regard to the childhood vaccination program, the sacred cow of the medical industry, there does indeed seem to be a major blind spot.

Don't confuse "criticizing big pharma" with "rejecting medical science that predates Western big pharma by at least 60 years".
But that's not what's happening here. There was barely any such thing as anti-vaxxers in the 80s. But then pharma got their legal immunity, and the schedule tripled (or more) in size over the following decades. The vast vast majority of 'skeptics' are really "pro safe vax" rather than "anti vax". And as Sqorin explained, there are concerns about safety testing of 50 (or actually 70+ now) vaccines as opposed to the much smaller number we had years ago. And looking deeper into it, you really don't find gold standard double blind placebo controlled studies regarding even single vaccines let alone the entire schedule in unison. 'Placebos' are pretty much invariably a different vaccine (or vaccines). And even when they're not, they're not just saline; you still get the aluminum adjuvant.

they aren’t coming from a rational place - mistakes are made.
Here, I disagree. I believe it IS entirely possible for completely rational, reasonable, and intelligent people to have reservations. Hell, you yourself expressed reservations. Are you now saying you weren't coming from a rational place, or are making mistakes? Maybe you're 'toning down' your rhetoric so as not to be lumped into the evil anti-vaxxer category, but you shouldn't have to.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,072
15,388
665
USA
dunpachi.com
But that's not what's happening here.
Yes, this does happen. Some people latch on to the general anti-Big Pharma sentiments and make decisions based on that, like not vaccinating kids.

There was barely any such thing as anti-vaxxers in the 80s. But then pharma got their legal immunity, and the schedule tripled (or more) in size over the following decades. The vast vast majority of 'skeptics' are really "pro safe vax" rather than "anti vax". And as Sqorin explained, there are concerns about safety testing of 50 (or actually 70+ now) vaccines as opposed to the much smaller number we had years ago. And looking deeper into it, you really don't find gold standard double blind placebo controlled studies regarding even single vaccines let alone the entire schedule in unison. Placebos are pretty much invariably a different vaccine (or vaccines). And even when they're not, they're not just saline; you still get the aluminum adjuvant.
I'm no stranger to thimerisol and the risk of bad batches and the unnecessary inclusion of more vaccines on the First Year schedule (like Hepatitis B, HPV, and Flu) and the risk of compromising/weakening an infant's immune system. I am also aware of Big Pharma's greed which I went into more detail above.

Vaccines excite the immune system to artificially build immunity. The simple act of exciting the immune system is not a freebie. We are taking advantage of the human stress response which has its limits. Any patient will suffer if they are in this state of stress for too long, especially a formula-fed infant with an undeveloped immune system.

As a parent of three kids in current_year, my wife and I poured a lot of time into investigating whether it was b.s. or valid. In a handful of cases, our own pediatrician agreed with our request to forestall certain early vaccines. In other cases, we learned more about vaccines and got our kid their shots.

The problem is when people make a hasty judgment and assume all vaccines are bad.
 

ChuckeRearmed

Member
Jan 31, 2018
639
263
200
I urge them to wait for higher temperatures (better for diseases). The galloping hooves, the horsemen of the apocalypse!
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
2,391
4,503
230
Here, I disagree. I believe it IS entirely possible for completely rational, reasonable, and intelligent people to have reservations. Hell, you yourself expressed reservations. Are you now saying you weren't coming from a rational place, or are making mistakes? Maybe you're 'toning down' your rhetoric so as not to be lumped into the evil anti-vaxxer category, but you shouldn't have to.
Specifically, I don't think the type of mercury used in vaccinations is causing autism. I've always thought that the link there was tenuous at best, largely limited to "it's mercury, mercury causes autism" which seemed a bit of a shallow reading of the situation. I imagine that if you believe that vaccinations are associated with an increase in autism, finding such an obvious connection would be terrifying and feel like justification for your beliefs. I don't agree though.

I do think Big Pharma is pulling a fast one on people with a vast majority of the vaccinations they offer, and if I knew then what I know now, I would've approached my own kids' vaccinations differently (they're too old to do anything about it now, except for the HPV vaccine). I'd still get them vaccinated, but I might have gotten them vaccinated later and I might have been a bit more selective about which vaccines I got them. Most of the vaccinations are mandated by school, so I'm not sure how much control I'd have over the schedule though.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
Just so you guys know based on what you have posted in this topic, Sqorin you are 100% an "anti-vaxxer" by the standards of the 'zealot' camp. DunDun, you probably are too. And so am I. And in reality none of us are anti-vaxxers. That's how ridiculous the dialogue around this issue has become.

Yes, this does happen. Some people latch on to the general anti-Big Pharma sentiments and make decisions based on that, like not vaccinating kids.


I'm no stranger to thimerisol and the risk of bad batches and the unnecessary inclusion of more vaccines on the First Year schedule (like Hepatitis B, HPV, and Flu) and the risk of compromising/weakening an infant's immune system. I am also aware of Big Pharma's greed which I went into more detail above.

Vaccines excite the immune system to artificially build immunity. The simple act of exciting the immune system is not a freebie. We are taking advantage of the human stress response which has its limits. Any patient will suffer if they are in this state of stress for too long, especially a formula-fed infant with an undeveloped immune system.

As a parent of three kids in current_year, my wife and I poured a lot of time into investigating whether it was b.s. or valid. In a handful of cases, our own pediatrician agreed with our request to forestall certain early vaccines. In other cases, we learned more about vaccines and got our kid their shots.

The problem is when people make a hasty judgment and assume all vaccines are bad.
I don't think we disagree on much here. Yes some people are irrational as you say. Others did what you and I did and spent a ton of time reading about this topic before making any decisions. In my experience there are a LOT more people in the "too much too soon, but still a good concept on the whole" camp than the "fuck you all vaccines are evil" camp. But really, it's VERY EASY, as you laid out yourself, to justify the mindset of not trusting the powers that be behind the official schedule. E.g. Hep-B at BIRTH; an STD; even when the mother tests negative for it. I know even plenty of staunch pro-vax people and doctors that refuse that particular shot. But it's on the CDC schedule, inexplicably. Of course people are gonna ask, "huh, that makes no sense; how ELSE are they trying to hornswaggle me?" Then people start wondering about the vast increases in things like (cough::autism::cough) allergies, asthma, assorted chronic autoimmune issues, and so on and so forth, to extents not seen in the 80s and far beyond what can adequately be explained by changes in diagnosis criteria.

But when the choice behind door number 1 is "spend money providing answers to these questions", and behind door number 2 "spend money shaming, vilifying, berating, and stripping rights away from anyone who doesn't fall perfectly in line".... they choose door number 2 every time. So if they ARE trustworthy, they aren't acting like it.

Specifically, I don't think the type of mercury used in vaccinations is causing autism. I've always thought that the link there was tenuous at best, largely limited to "it's mercury, mercury causes autism" which seemed a bit of a shallow reading of the situation. I imagine that if you believe that vaccinations are associated with an increase in autism, finding such an obvious connection would be terrifying and feel like justification for your beliefs. I don't agree though.

I do think Big Pharma is pulling a fast one on people with a vast majority of the vaccinations they offer, and if I knew then what I know now, I would've approached my own kids' vaccinations differently (they're too old to do anything about it now, except for the HPV vaccine). I'd still get them vaccinated, but I might have gotten them vaccinated later and I might have been a bit more selective about which vaccines I got them. Most of the vaccinations are mandated by school, so I'm not sure how much control I'd have over the schedule though.
If you were mainly talking about the mercury-autism link, okay, gotcha. (That said, I'd still love to see some discussion around the point RFK, Jr. raised in the link you posted last night; how will they explain that one away; or will they bother.... these types of things never get any mainstream coverage.... wonder why.)

As for the last bit about mandates, in most states you don't have any control over the schedule once they enter kindergarten. You pretty much need to be 'caught up' by then with whatever the state schedule entails (sometimes it's verbatim the CDC recommendations, sometimes it omits a shot or two here or there). In California where they recently removed the philosophical exemption, some kids are grandfathered in for a time and/or being given extra time to be 'provisionally' enrolled while they catch up over a period of a couple years. If you claim a personal or religious exemption it's generally all or nothing. Medical exemptions can vary.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
2,391
4,503
230
Yes, this does happen. Some people latch on to the general anti-Big Pharma sentiments and make decisions based on that, like not vaccinating kids.
But not all of them, so it is worth hearing them out, at least, until you know what their actual positions are. I'm specifically criticizing the public discussion around anti-vaxxers that paints them all with the same brush.

Vaccines excite the immune system to artificially build immunity. The simple act of exciting the immune system is not a freebie. We are taking advantage of the human stress response which has its limits. Any patient will suffer if they are in this state of stress for too long, especially a formula-fed infant with an undeveloped immune system.
One thing I remember reading, but I don't remember where so don't take this as fact, is that the immunity created by vaccines is different than the kind of natural immunity you would get from having the disease proper, and that vaccinating a large number of diseases could be creating a weaker immune system overall. I'm having a brain fart moment right now, so I don't remember what this was in relation to. If I could remember where I read this, I'd go find it again.

The problem is when people make a hasty judgment and assume all vaccines are bad.
I don't think anybody is really arguing that, even among the harshest critics of vaccination. They know vaccines work, but they think there are dangerous side effects with how they are produced or with the schedule they are administered. Ultimately, they don't engage in "vaccine denial" (well, most don't - some think the government is secretly sterilizing kids through mandatory vaccinations) but think that vaccinations could be made safer, tested better, and administered more responsibly and are choosing to not vaccinate their children until they are. To ignore the vast grey area and to assume everybody has the dumbest version of their side's beliefs is irresponsible.