
How the Anti-Vaxxers Are Winning - gwintrob
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/how-the-anti-vaxxers-are-winning.html
======
SeanDav
It would be a huge concern if people stopped vaccinating. I am definitely in
favour of vaccination - but if my experiences are anything to go by, the
government and healthcare establishment have done themselves and the public no
favours in their approach to the issues.

At the peak of the autism-vaccination scare a few years ago, we were due to
vaccinate our child. I researched as much as I could, but almost all the
information out there was very basic and almost condescending. Rather than try
face parents concerns head-on, the attitude was simply to say "vaccination"
equals "good", with no hint of a balanced discussion to address real issues
like side effects and harm from vaccinations. On the one side we were faced
with almost hysterical rhetoric and supposed "facts" from the anti-vaccination
groups and on the other, near apathy from the governmental organisations.

We did go ahead and get our child vaccinated, but after approximately 2 weeks
she starting displaying very worrying symptoms, her eyes rolling backwards
into her head, becoming floppy, making peculiar sounds. We rushed her to
hospital, where the doctors steadfastly refused to admit even the possibility
that her symptoms were related to the recent vaccinations. It was just
"coincidence". At least one of my nephews suffered some sort of febrile
convulsions after the measles vaccination - again coincidence apparently.

Even after all this, I still support vaccinations, because the disease is
statistically far worse the than side effects from vaccinations.

~~~
lsiebert
I think that's because that encourages people to assess the issue for their
children, but really vaccines aren't just for your kid, they provide herd
immunity that saves the lives of newborns, the immunocompromised like children
on chemo, etc. Also people forget the horror of life before vaccines for
things like polio.

~~~
nonbel
> "saves the lives of newborns"

This is a myth, see my other post here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656462](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656462)

------
godshatter
When I grew up, cases of the measles were common. I had them, my sister had
them and many of my friends came down with them. I didn't come from a
community of anti-vaxxers, either. It was just something that happened to
kids, like the flu.

I'm not supporting the anti-vaccination movement, just pointing out that this
world of pretty much no one getting the disease is the new normal and that we
survived as a civilization before it became so. Obviously it would be better
if everyone were vaccinated. I'm just trying to put it in perspective.

~~~
Protostome
Did you know that measles weakens the immune system years after infection?
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6235/694](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6235/694)

------
wonderflpancake
I wish we would stop with the vaxxers vs. anti-vaxxers. I think most people
(including myself) fall into the middle - we don't believe they are entirely
safe, but understand its the lesser of two evils and have to roll the dice.

What I dislike about the "pro-vaxxers" is their unwillingness to acknowledge
ANYTHING negative about vaccines.

\- There IS "stuff" in most vaccines that we should ALL agree should not be in
there (formaldehyde, aluminum, etc). There is no "safe" level of aluminum for
a baby. Some vaccines manufacturers make them without these things if you
really do the research for each one, but the chance your doctor carries the
perfect brand combinations of the ones without all the questionable
ingredients is unlikely. For example, if you find out XYZ co makes the MMR
vaccine without aluminum, it doesn't really matter because you probably can't
get the version from XYZ co.

\- The packet insert clinical studies that come in the vaccines are usually
absurdly small. We should ALL agree millions of people are getting these
vaccinations every year and a sample size of 500, 5000, or 10000 people in
1980 just doesn't cut it. There should be better ways to keep these studies
current with much more data.

But no one usually wants to hear these criticisms. "The science proves its
safe!" Sure, until it doesn't. Wouldn't it be great if we could just
acknowledge the obvious issues instead of opposing everything the other side
says?

~~~
akytt
Based on what scientific fact do you state "there is no safe level of aluminum
for a baby?" We all, including babies, contain aluminum. That's the problem: i
can't agree to "there's stuff in there that should not be" based on an
opinion.

~~~
wonderflpancake
[http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-
concerns/vaccines/va...](http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-
concerns/vaccines/vaccine-faqs) gives quite a bit of color.

This is exactly what I always see happen. Common sense tells me formaldehyde
and aluminum = not good. It's not iron after all. I don't recall every seeing
formaldehyde or aluminum nutrition supplement pills. Yet people will literally
argue that formaldehyde is naturally occurring and exists in our bodies and
that's supposed to fly "scientifically". We need to do better.

~~~
yongjik
From Wikipedia:

> Formaldehyde and its adducts are ubiquitous in living organisms. It is
> formed in the metabolism of endogenous amino acids and is found in the
> bloodstream of humans and other primates at concentrations of approximately
> 0.1 millimolar.

Maybe "people will literally argue that formaldehyde is naturally occurring
and exists in our bodies" because, you know, it's true?

Also considering that aluminum is the third most abundant element in the
Earth's crust, I'd be very surprised if even ancient people didn't have some
aluminum in their bodies. They could ingest more aluminum than we do simply by
chewing on food with dirt.

~~~
wonderflpancake
> Maybe "people will literally argue that formaldehyde is naturally occurring
> and exists in our bodies" because, you know, it's true?

Sure, as a standalone fact. But the context of this topic is as an additive in
vaccines given to babies 10-30 lbs.

I'm still amazed people will argue that it's fine to add formaldehyde and
aluminum, and then justify it with ancient people. The lengths people will go
to to avoid giving an inch to any vaccine concerns is crazy. I'd even take a
"Yes, ok you have a point there, BUT still...".

~~~
flukus
Because you haven't demonstrated that the aluminium is harmful. Babies eat it
every day, do you suggest stopping breast feeding because breast milk contains
a lot of aluminium:

[http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-
cente...](http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-
center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum)

~~~
wonderflpancake
I'm not sure how much demonstration you could need. The page I previously
linked to is thoroughly sourced to medical journals and the doctor even gives
a balanced opinion:

> If I could sum up the aluminum controversy in three sentences, it would be
> this. There is good evidence that large amounts of aluminum are harmful to
> humans. There is no solid evidence that the amount of aluminum in vaccines
> is harmful to infants and children. No one has actually studied vaccine
> amounts of aluminum in healthy human infants to make sure it is safe. Should
> we now stop and research this matter? Or should we just go on and continue
> to hope that it is safe?

Regarding the aluminum in breast milk - I won't say its false because I don't
know. But so far I haven't found that sourced anywhere. Just a lot of articles
using it as a talking point.

~~~
Thimothy
"There is good evidence that large amounts of aluminum are harmful to humans."

But that's applicable to every substance in the universe!!! From serpent venom
and uranium to oxygen and water. Seriously, you can die if you drink too much
water and it's not pleasant.

Your argument proves too much, we can't ban everything that is harmful to
humans in some doses. We can and do ban certain doses of certain substances,
and that amount of aluminum is well bellow the damage threshold for humans.

------
alextheparrot
In what way does an individual have the right to not be vaccinated? More
generally, in what way can the state not impose on the individual's health
(Especially when it believes it is improving it)? There is a lot of talk about
rights here, yet no explanation of why the right to not be vaccinated exists.
The reason why the U.S. has a Bill of Rights is because many things we
consider rights are not inalienable.

The exact argument, and I present two quotes from the Supreme Court, that
vaccines can cause harm [0] and that they therefore should not be allowed to
be mandatory have been heard and refuted [1].

[0] "The defendant offered to prove that vaccination 'quite often' caused
serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated; that the
operation 'occasionally' resulted in death; that it was 'impossible' to tell
'in any particular case' what the results of vaccination would be, or whether
it would injure the health or result in death"

[1] "It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would
practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the
public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease.
Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any
conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of
the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep
and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers that
a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all."

~~~
jdoliner
Whether or not an individual has a right to not be vaccinated is really the
question at stake here. AFAIK we don't yet have a direct SCOTUS decision on
this and the default is that individuals can't be compelled to undergo
procedures. That's not an argument either way, I'm just summarizing my
understanding of the state of the world today. The discussion in this thread,
at least my comments, are entirely about what I think the rights should be. I
think it's very likely that we'll see a SCOTUS case in the near future about
just this issue since we're getting close to a breaking point. My argument is
that we're going to have a number of nasty things to contend with once we go
down the road of forcing medical procedures for societal goods. As I mentioned
else where in this thread there was a time when SCOTUS ruled that forced
sterilization could be used to implement eugenics. [0] That's the type of
thing I think we'd be opening ourselves up to by not respecting people's right
to decline procedures.

To draw another parallel that may resonate with the HN crowd. The argument
that decided Roe V. Wade was that a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment
implies a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I can't see any
way that argument is going to hold up in a world where a right to privacy
doesn't also imply a right to choose whether or not to be vaccinated.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell)

~~~
alextheparrot
The case you are looking for is Jacobson v. Massachusetts [0], which is where
I pulled my excerpts from. It held that the 14th in this case allows forced
vaccination (Well, doesn't violate). I'm familiar with the Buck v. Bell
(Forced sterilization is allowed, as you mentioned) case as well as Prince v.
Massachusetts (Schools can require vaccinations), though the argument made by
the courts in all cases was to the effect that the society out-weighs the
individual in the matter of health. What we implement on-top of that is up to
the legislature, but the courts have shown an understanding that the state has
a role in health.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts)

~~~
jdoliner
Point well taken, although I believe the decision did explicit say that
vaccines can't be forced on people but people can be punished for refusal to
take vaccines. Including being imprisoned and fined. Slight distinction, but
still I was unaware of the ruling so thanks for sharing. In practice it seems
that people are seldom forced to take vaccines these days, except maybe by
virtue of being denied access to public school. Do you expect to see that
changing soon? I think given the circumstances and the existing ruling it
seems quite likely.

------
wmboy
"Measles is one of the most contagious and most lethal of all human diseases."

Okay, I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that sentence is not accurate.

The percentage of people that die from measles is extremely low, and it's hard
to tell if it's the disease that causes it, or simply the fact that the person
was already very weak (and therefore would have died from another sickness
such as complications of a cold).

~~~
acqq
> The percentage of people that die from measles is extremely low

Only because most of the children are vaccinated!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles)

"It causes the most vaccine-preventable deaths of any disease."

"In 1980, the disease was estimated to have caused 2.6 million deaths per
year."

It would be an unbelievably cruel experiment, but if "anti-vaxxers" would win
in the US and force it on everybody, in about, let's say, a decade there would
been enough children deaths (it's 2 from every 1000 infected!) to prove them
wrong.

As long as the most of children are vaccinated, it's the vaccinated ones who
protect those of "anti."

~~~
will_pseudonym
I think he was referring to the mortality rate of people who are infected.

"The risk of death among those infected is usually 0.2%, but may be up to 10%
in those who have malnutrition." (from your link)

~~~
acqq
Yes, only of 12 million children younger than 5 in the US, "only" 0.2%, that
is, 2 of 1000 infected would make 25000 vaccine preventable children deaths in
one epidemics, if nobody would have been vaccinated.

To answer to wmboy's question "how does it compare to malaria" \-- malaria
wasn't treatable with vaccines up to now, there are very recent successes to
develop one which is still only 25%-50% effective (has a relatively low
efficacy and it was only recently, 2015, approved for use outside trials).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria_vaccine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria_vaccine)
I don't think you'd like mosquitoes biting you if you would travel, for
example, to Africa, where malaria is common.

------
dpatru
This article does not explain why anti-vaxxers are winning, but it
demonstrates why. It repeats tired establishment arguments that the diseases
that vaccine protect against are dangerous, but does not address or even
acknowledge the legitimate concerns of parents who have seen first hand, or
have heard from trusted sources, serious adverse reactions to vaccinations.
Loud denials by the medical establishment along with efforts to use state
power to compel vaccinations, legal immunity for vaccine makers, and brutal
retaliation against doctors who question the orthodoxy do much to help the
anti-vaccination movement.

------
ArtDev
There will be a switch when parents fear the disease more than the vaccine.

Rates will go up again.

~~~
jdoliner
Possibly, I think the anti-vaxxer movement has more to do with a distrust of
authority, particularly scientific authority, than it has to do with an actual
fear of autism. If / when a measles outbreak happens there's still a question
if people will be willing to accept medical science as an answer to the
problem or if it'll be cast again as the villain. People are starting to
distrust science, and there's no guarantee that scary diseases will change
that, even if it seems to us here on HN as if it should.

~~~
hckr1292
Any suggestions for how to talk about the hazards of not vaccinating with
loved ones who don't agree?

~~~
moultano
Pictures of dead/maimed children.

~~~
bigtex
Be sure to also read all the stories of healthy, active teenage girls who
after getting the Gardisil shot had their health severely decline. Then read
story after story of these same girls (all over the world) being told all
their symptoms were made up and that they needed to see therapists instead of
medical doctors. This type of behavior is why more and more people are
questioning vaccines and their safety. The medical community acts as though
vaccines have 0 side effects, even though the drugs clearly state they have
side effects. I have read countless stories of parents whose child experience
severe reactions right after vaccination and then the pediatrician or ER
doctor never even thinks to consider that maybe the vaccine caused the
problem.

I have a sister in law who when she was a young girl got a vaccination and
then within 24 hours was unable to walk for several days, basically paralyzed.
This caused her mother, who is an ER doctor, to delay vaccinations for her
younger siblings.

I just wish the vaccine establishment would just be honest and admit that some
children have to suffer or even die for the benefit of the "herd".

~~~
dpatru
> I just wish the vaccine establishment would just be honest and admit that
> some children have to suffer or even die for the benefit of the "herd".

I think this is the problem. If doctors told parents that their child could
die or become paralyzed from vaccination, and that they can't predict it or
stop it, then vaccinations would be much less popular. So the establishment
lies for a good cause (to protect the herd).

------
MichaelBurge
Even if they did cause autism, the risk is less than the historically-
verifiable risk of contracting measles, isn't it? If you take whatever the
observed increase in autism is, blame it 100% on vaccines, and compare it to
the number of historical measles deaths, are vaccinations still a good idea?

------
patrickg_zill
I was likely (born early 70s) vaccinated according to the first schedule,
although my parents allowed me to get measles, mumps and chicken pox. Since
they've passed, I can't ask them for their exact reasoning as to why.

The 1983-era CDC schedule:
[https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/images/schedule1983s....](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/images/schedule1983s.jpg)

Current schedule: [https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-
read/child.ht...](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-
read/child.html)

Just commenting: there is a big difference between the likely vax schedule
that a 45yo of today got, and what an infant born this year or last, will get.

~~~
climber604
I'd expect the schedules to change (improve) over time. So what's the point
you're trying to make?

~~~
bigtex
They don't test what happens to someone when they get all those shots. Also
chicken pox is reality is no big deal and all my siblings had it as a child.

~~~
flukus
[http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20110725/sharp-d...](http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20110725/sharp-
drop-in-chickenpox-deaths-due-to-vaccine)

100 dead kids and 11,000 hospitalized a year is no big deal? Not to mention
shingles.

------
aanm1988
> 450 died

That's the solution, unfortunately. Kids dying, the kids of rich idiots who
decide not to vaccinate. Maybe we can get back polio and it will be just like
when my grandma was a kid and she would get told not to leave the yard at
certain times of year.

------
owebmaster
Anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOs are the proof that far right and far left meet each
other in the extremes.

~~~
cpburns2009
I was under the impression anti-vaccination and anti-GMO attitudes were more
common among liberals than conservatives (in the U.S. at least).

~~~
Jemmeh
I see both of those issues on both sides of the fence personally, just for
different reasons.

I live in Southern USA and there's a lot of agriculture here, a lot of the
farmers I know are conservative and anti-GMO. But I think they're mostly
against it because of all the food patents and monopolies. Most of the left-
leaning people I know are more against it because "we need more research/we
have a poor understanding of nutrition".

~~~
owebmaster
> Most of the left-leaning people I know are more against it because "we need
> more research/we have a poor understanding of nutrition"

And the funny thing that this is what the anti-vaxxers think too

------
234dd57d2c8dba
Stupid question but, isn't this a self-solving problem?

People that get vaccines won't get sick, only the anti-vaxxers will get sick.
Anti-vaxxers will either die or be convinced to get vaccines.

What am I missing here?

~~~
ofcrpls
There are those who _cannot_ take vaccinations due to medical conditions and
there are those who _opt-out_ from vaccinations due to beliefs. Guess who
suffers damage for no fault of their own ( not blaming the children of the
parents who are making the choice ).

~~~
zeveb
> There are those who cannot take vaccinations due to medical conditions

Those folks are relatively rare though.

Seems to me that living surrounded by contagion is part of the human
condition, and that all of us have the right to take action to protect
ourselves (and our children) from that contagion, but no-one has the right to
violently force someone else to protect himself.

~~~
mobiplayer
There's always a little chance of getting infected even with the vaccine.

Herd immunity makes that chance orders of magnitude smaller.

It's not about forcing people to protect themselves. It is about forcing
people to not increase the chances of my kids dying of a completely avoidable
issue, just because these other people believe in fairies.

Your freedom extends as far as where mine starts.

------
astrodust
We're all going to die, quite literally, of stupid.

Many people are going to suffer horribly, measels is no fun, and many will die
because of these stupid, stupid anti-vaxxers.

They should all be quarantined on some remote island off the coast of Alaska.

~~~
jdoliner
I can understand the anger, it's quite horrifying that diseases we thought
were eradicated are making a comeback. On the other hand I'm also horrified by
the idea of shipping people off to Alaska for refusing to submit to a medical
procedure. That's a very dangerous precedent that could be applied in all
sorts of heinous ways.

~~~
EpicEng
I'm not. These people represent a huge risk to those around them. We put
people in tiny cells for less.

~~~
jdoliner
Do we? Last time I checked we put people in cells for committing crimes. What
sorts of prisoners are you talking about here? It's not obvious to me but
perhaps I'm being thick.

~~~
EpicEng
No, we put people in cells because they represent a threat to the general
public. Of course, it doesn't _always_ play out that way in reality, but their
are a limited number of options re punishment as well.

Society has a right to protect itself. If your decisions put my life, as well
as thousands of others, in danger unnecessarily then you represent a
significant risk.

------
tu7001
This is a lie, measles is completely harmless, I had it, hundreds of kids in
my town had it nobody dies. I expect the similar situation in other cities; it
was Poland 80's. The idea that stuffing healthy infant with coctail of dirty
substances gives any adventages is ridiculous for me. You can google vaccine
ingredients and check wiki. I didn't give injection to my daughter and she is
pretty healthy.

------
Glyptodon
Anybody else find it mildly annoying when articles like this spend a paragraph
saying "as a/an X, Y, and Z ... blah ..."

In this case the follow-up is "I’m worried that our nation’s health will soon
be threatened because we have not stood up to the pseudoscience and fake
conspiracy claims of this movement."

You have to be a scientist and have daughter with autism to worry about this?
Really? As a person who's not a scientist and doesn't have an
autistic/disabled daughter am I allowed to be worried too?

I mean it's nice that you're an expert and have experiences, but they're
mostly superfluous prefix to your main sentence there...

(That said, I would support a law allowing for the parents of unvaccinated
children to be charged with manslaughter or attempted manslaughter when pre-
vaccination infants, those on chemotherapy, or similar come down with a
disease like measles and live in the same vicinity, go to the same schools,
etc.)

------
lend000
Mandatory vaccination is definitely a contentious subject, although many do
not understand or acknowledge the subtleties.

Pros for this position:

1\. The individual is incurring some level of risk by not vaccinating.

2\. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of
getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people
who are vaccinated anyway?)

Cons:

1\. You are mandating a person subject themselves to a medical procedure, a
very personal violation of that person's liberty.

2\. Taking a forced vaccine incurs its own (low) risk. A distant family member
of mine contracted Polio from a Polio vaccine. The 'anti-vaxxers' have claims
of other unhealthy complications of vaccines, some of which are probably true
to a degree.

The only argument I see for mandatory vaccination is that it has to be done
before the individual in question can legally consent, so perhaps 'society'
should have greater say than the individual's parents for what's best for
their child, similar to how society imposes certain education requirements,
even for home schooling.

~~~
defen
> 2\. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of
> getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people
> who are vaccinated anyway?)

No, that's not how it works. A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be
the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not
trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that
as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic.

~~~
nonbel
>"A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between
"exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but
that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that
you are not fully informed on this topic."

And in epdiemiology 102, you learn a near-eradicating policy is one of the
most dangerous things you can do:

> _" Then, suddenly, a new epidemic appears as if from nowhere. This is an
> illustration of a phenomenon known as the ‘honeymoon period’. This is the
> period of very low incidence that immediately follows the introduction of a
> non-eradicating mass vaccination policy."_

More in my earlier post here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252)

~~~
defen
Do you think that is the logic employed by even one out of 100 anti-
vaccination people? Do you think your post is an argument in favor of _higher_
vaccination coverage or lower?

~~~
nonbel
I'm just spreading more accurate information than usually found in these
threads and leaving my opinion out of it.

