> "We were working with a protein that forms a multimeric particle resembling a virus but is completely safe, because it has no genetic material inside," said Pascal Fender, expert virologist at CNRS. "Completely by chance, we discovered that this particle was incredibly stable even after months, without refrigeration."
It looks like the protein was chosen for its virus-like structure and/or its potential to be remodeled to mimic this specific virus (Chikungunya), and it only happened to be thermostable.
A big issue the anti-vaccine movement latched onto was "they contain mercury!". Technically true- a compound used as a preservative has some mercury molecules in it. Never mind that it wasn't elemental mercury and was perfectly safe to ingest, or that the quantity of mercury was less than is in most fish-based diets.
The end result was a lot of third world countries naively banning vaccines containing mercury- meaning that all these vaccines no longer had preservatives that let them survive longer outside of refrigeration. It's hard to bring "must stay refrigerated" anything into rural areas in less developed parts of the world (or at least, it's a lot more expensive to do it). End result: fewer people vaccinated, and more preventable deaths, higher costs per person saved.
This kind of breakthrough, if applicable more widely, could save millions (of both lives and dollars).
Government censorship always works to suppress only bad ideas and is never used to preserve power /s
I am quite capable of telling the difference between tyranny, and basic public safety, and I think you are too. Vaccination in 2019 is about as clear-cut a line as I can think of.
Besides, government censorship is not some esoteric political theory, indeed it's the natural inclination of those in power, and there's a long history of states using it to the detriment of their citizens -- but maybe they just haven't tried "real" censorship?
And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.
For your second point: there's a long history of states using police to the detriment of their citizens (And, in my opinion, they continue to do so, even to this day), so we should abolish the institution tomorrow. How's that for an esoteric theory? For some reason, though, the courts aren't super keen on that line of reasoning...
Yes, lack of herd immunity causing an outbreak certainly does meet the "clear and present danger".
You don't get to build whatever you want precisely because it might harm somebody else--we have building codes.
You don't get to skip vaccination precisely because an outbreak WILL harm somebody else.
You really think this sort of thing is apolitical, that the government can be trusted here?
All of this is still crude - just less crude then outright censhorship - because the deep roots of the movement are too difficult to root out. Ultimately, this movement is suited to the West in our age. First, we demonize Big Everything (sometimes even with reason). Second, most of the people who reject vaccines ultimately prefer a dead child (even someone else's) over an autistic child. This is also pushed hard in our culture. Third, we have this worship of natural everything, even though nature is full of poisons.
Well, it seems like child abuse to me, and it's not even containable - the effects are not limited to their family, but can effect mine as well* . Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here. On political matters there are votes and if my side loses, that's the way it is. Here, the very fact such a movement exists (even if the vast majority is against it and votes against it) puts some immunocompromised people at risk.
* There are religious sects that agree to basically live apart of society - so it wouldn't matter that much to us what they do - but I don't think that's a possible resolution to this issue, not for most anti-vaxxers.
Typically, the resolution is some form of mandating that kids get vaccinated.
However, given that these parents believe that puts their child and themselves at risk, they'd go far to stop it, up to faking vaccinations - at which point any outbreak would "prove" the vaccines are ineffective. So I don't think there's a way of avoiding a confrontation with the movement itself.
I feel like there a tendency to believe that, since censorship is bad, censorship must also be completely ineffective, and we tell stories like "deplatforming is useless" to reinforce that. But I don't think that's a realistic approach. Censorship can and does work, in the right circumstances. Chinese millennials may know that something happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989, but they're fuzzy on the details and inclined to downplay it and keep quiet about it. That's censorship working as intended. Assuming your enemies are incompetent doesn't accomplish anything but a false sense of security.
The primary question that I like to ask people who make statements like this is as follows: "What is your mental model of how vaccines get approved and pushed to market?"
Even money says that you have a model that looks like "drugs" where vaccines are biologics, and treated completely differently.
Then I like to ask "If you did get sick from a vaccine what could you do". In the US you can't sue, you end up in a special vaccine court. HN in general opposes things that have extra-judicial processes attached to them (secret warrant courts, binding arbitration). For me extra judicial has become a "smell" ala code smells that make me look deeper at an issue.
This is the same industry that gave us Martin Shkreli, Aids tainted medicine knowing sold in 3rd world countries, and $600 epipens. The suppression of science that is going to upset the apple cart is a thing. See John Yudkin and pure white and deadly, see suppression of tobacco research, see Barry Marshall and the fact that even after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results.
There are plenty of people out there that are mindlessly "pro vaxx" who have zero understanding. The debate has made me educate myself on the topic. Vaccines are an effective but flawed product, one that needs educated consumers and a hell of a lot of reform.
* None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. Or vaccines in particular.
* That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though. Big Corporates are bad, supported by Arrogant Science that can sometimes be flawed, therefore something related to them must be Bad too. To fix the unspecific Bad, the area needs some unspecified Reform (reform is always Good of course, and can never be Bad).
One that has no president or case law is. One without the ability to contest (your award) is. The moment that you leave special masters rather than experts before a judge you end up with a very different set of outcomes.
> None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust.
I didn't question the FDA approval process for drugs, or biologics. I just said it is different and you need to approach the situation with a very different mental model. There is good and bad in the process and consumers should be aware of what they are putting into their bodies.
If you want to question the FDA, and on the topic of biologics, then look no further than Chiron corporation. The UK government had to shut down their plant, and the FDA knew what was up. Peoples lives are on the line and a "miscommunication" by the FDA is an unacceptable excuse.
The examples I listed had NOTHING to do with the FDA, and everything to do with the players involved, Doctors and large corporations. History is a good indicator that we have problematic interactions between these groups and science that harms profits or changes long held (and sometimes wrong) beliefs.
> That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though..
I didn't say "big corporations are bad", I didn't say "science was arrogant". Sciences has its problems - reproduction, trusted elders, corporate interests and the ego of humans. I think science is aware of its issues and is the tides are shifting on punishing and replication, money and ego's are harder to solve but the former will do much to address the problem. Again history is a great indicator of how we treat change when money and long held ideology are on the line, it is a place where we should be MORE cautious not less.
* The FDA did screw up once in 2004 with a flu vaccine - and it was caught in time. I doubt a single miscommunication 15 years ago is representative of the process.
* I stand by my summary. Sure, your original post didn't use the same exact words, but it's pretty typical rhetoric: greedy corporations ("corporate profits", "$600 epipens") and arrogant flawed science ("Barry Marshall.. after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results").
* After all that, you're not really saying what "reform" you have in mind. If history is any guide, the misEducation of the last twenty years did a lot more harm than good.
I did not know that the vaccine court was established after an earlier vaccine scare in the UK...
This is a cute phrase, but too cute to be true.
All public vaccination schemes are for populations, but flu vaccination in this form seems much more of a gamble than tried-and-tested vaccines.
AIR one-in-ten getting the vaccine get "flu-like symptoms"; but it's for the population as a whole.
> Our vaccine candidate is easy to manufacture, extremely stable and elicits a powerful immune response.
Those are what most of the intelligent anti-vaxxers worry about, except for a few people who object to fetal tissue being used in development, which is not an issue here.
I'm sure some folks will get up in arms about this, but it'll be a huge step forwards in many people's minds, and hopefully will be used as a template in the future.
To clarify: I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I do think the testing process isn't rigorous enough, and I have seen absolutely awful medically confirmed reactions firsthand, which gives me a slightly different perspective. Vaccines are good, but I want the reaction rate in non-immunocompromised people to be zero
Interesting, what was that like? Did he actually believe all the claims he was making?
The Tommey family (worked with Andy on Vaxxed) are some of the kindest people I've ever met, and I'd like to see them again.
Suzanne Humphries is possibly one of the smartest people I know, and is incredibly well-read. She's a nephrologist who started charting patterns around people getting flu shots followed by sudden kidney failure, well before Andy did his "research". She brought this to the attention of a researcher, and was promptly dismissed.
She's not anti-vaccine, but is pro-vaccine-safety, which I appreciate as an intellectually honest position. Out of the whole crowd, she's the person I would listen to. She's a bit like Andrew Yang; she doesn't hold opinions, the data is her opinion.
I'm not sure why this is getting downvotes. I'm answering the question.
I've never heard of Humphries before your comment. I searched and found a long video of Humphries where she says, at the outset:
>> "never has there been a safe vaccine, never will there be a safe vaccine, and it is not possible to have a safe vaccine." 
IMO, a reasonable person would call that an anti-vaccine point of view, don't you think? Calling it pro-vaccine-safety seems disingenuous.
Anyways, I agree with you that she seems well read and she articulates her position in a level-headed manner and I'm even open to her being correct. But her position seems to be very anti-vaccine because she tells us that vaccine safety is "not possible" and that there will never be a safe vaccine.
I get frustrated with her sometimes, because her ideas are incredibly rational and coherent, but she doesn't understand presentation or how to sell an idea.
I would recommend her book if you want to gain an understanding of the rationalist arguments against modern vaccination:
It's controversial thought, but it is enlightening, especially if you want to understand why some "otherwise" smart people believe this nonsense
My early childhood passed in a city where meat was sold on pushcarts and where drinking tap water was an easy way to have an infection. I guess having the unnatural disease matter filled with metals injected into my muscle might have saved me from becoming a statistic.
No problem. Hope you enjoy if you decide to peruse.
To be fair, he's only a neurosurgeon, so I'm sure we all know better than him about this.
To clarify, he's only a pediatric neurosurgeon who pioneered procedures previously pondered as preposterous. This is actually something he's a recognized expert on, but because he holds a different opinion than you, he must be wrong.
He's not even antivax, he just thinks that newborns shouldn't receive a full round of shots immediately after birth, but that they should be spaced out. What an idiotic, uninformed individual.
I think he's being used as an example of someone who can be brilliant in one specialty while demonstrating /u/magashna's "doorknob level intelligence" in other fields like Egyptian archeology.
"Practitioner" would have made a beautiful 7x combo
> Andrew Jeremy Wakefield is a discredited British ex-physician who became an anti-vaccine activist. As a gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London, he published a 1998 paper in The Lancet claiming a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism.
Unless the child has allergies to the vaccine, or a compromised immune system, it isn't reasonable to leave the child without vaccination. Intelligent people have more complex ways of rationalizing the decisions they make based on fear. It doesn't make the decision intelligent or wise.
Either way, better vaccines will be a boon to all. Hopefully, it will also ameliorate the fears of some "anti-vaxxers". My own fear is that because irrational decisions are already not based on evidence, these people will be unable to consider or accept new evidence, even when their specific rationalizations have been accounted for.
I mean, honestly, do you think that vaccines are harm free panacea for all that ills humanity? One of the reasons that the anti-vaxxer movement is so dangerous is precisely because vaccines are dangerous and some people's bodies are intolerant to them (most obviously imuno compromised individuals).
What I find so bizarre is that the debate feels like a ball game between two rival teams where one team is crushing the other. The losing players start talking trash and all the players on the other team have to do to shut them up is say "look at the scoreboard".
For vaccines, the scoreboard is pretty clear. Child mortality rates are at historic lows globally. Vaccines are the clear winner by a huge margin. In other words, "look at the scoreboard".
I thought it was someone against vaccination?
Orwell wrote many essays about this. Orwell wrote very many good essays.
Have you re-created the paper's data analysis from the (typically not easily available) data? Turns out some medical communities, like physiology, suck at data analysis.
Because if not, then you're just as uninformed as the anti-vaxxers with a healthy mix of arrogance.
If you are a researcher in the field, keep up the good work, but this arrogance towards the little ones fuels anti-vaxxer movement.
I despise people who are "on my side of the debate" belittling those they disagree with. Such incivility!
"How every food you eat is specifically processed" To a large extent yes - foodie.
Better example: web development. I don't care, I don't care to read about it. I also offer little judgment on that matter. I respect the opinion of those who seem to have an informed decisions on the topic, but I don't belittle those who don't trust the opinions of these, largely self appointed, experts.
As to medicine, the medical field has a long and rich history of abuse of patient rights (from forcibly stopping breast feeding, forced sterilizations, forced infection with syphilis, not treating said victims, ect) and hubris (refusing to wash their hands is my favorite).
While I believe in vaccines, I don't fault any one for not trusting medical authorities. Dr.s are, typically, (because they are trained this way) very patronizing people that historically have not respected their patients agency.
Nobody is dismissing this "out of hand", but the minuscule percentage of the population these issues effect is being used as a crutch for the anti-vaxxer movement.
Why is it always about you, and not the people who can't get vaccines due to legitimate medical reasons whom might get ill because of people voluntarily compromising herd immunity due to ignorance?
I have strong feelings about people forcing their BS non-scientific beliefs on their minor children.
[In some old vaccines, they used a somewhat related similar virus/bacteria that was close enough to make you get the immunity, but not to cause the illness. I'm not sure if this method is used still today.]
Your "theory" on shingles is inaccurate. The chickenpox virus can go dormant and resurface as shingles. Read the Mayo Clinic's overview.
Basically, you are entirely wrong and are spreading inaccurate information, stop it.
The shingles vaccine bolsters immunity towards the chicken pox virus so that even when depressed your immune system has enough T-cells against the virus that it does not reactivate. Shingrex is 97% effective at preventing shingles.
* Every year the vaccine is updated to match the new mutation which is why you need to get one every year.
* Some years the vaccine is not fully protective, but it will still reduce the severity and duration. This could mean the difference between life and death for at-risk populations: old, young, immune-comprised.
* If enough people get it, it provides herd immunity for people who can't take it such as babies less than 6 months.
I know someone with a child who has an immune condition who can't get the flu vaccine. The father didn't think he needed to get it because he didn't think the flu was that big of a deal, and it's not for most healthy people. Well he gets the flu, gives it to his son, and the son ends up in the ICU. Thankfully the son survived. The father now always gets the flu shot.
My big thing is safety and accountability. Currently, if a vaccine is harmful, the company that makes it has no liability, /and/ there's no control/test testing. The only way they're tested is by giving people the same shot with and without the viral component.
Problem is, saying anything that makes vaccines not sound like unicorn blood makes you one of "them", and you obviously want everyone to die of polio.
Also, how would you do control testing for vaccines?
This exists because of a bill sheltering vaccine manufacturers from all liability.
As for control testing, you give some people a saline solution, others the shot, and others the shot with no virus. Put the issue to rest.
Again, what the heck. I'm answering the question.
Wait, why do you need the third group (saline solution) as part of the control?
The saline is to rule out effects from the preservatives and adjuvants used. The viral component of vaccines isn't what anti-vaxxers usually worry about.
No, it's because the average person has no idea what they are talking about and do primitive correlation.
After a flu shot you can very well feel unwell as your immune system ramps up to eliminate the inactive virus.
The real flu is actually nasty. Most people just have colds and never experience full blown flu until they finally do and regret.
No that's an oxymoron if I have ever seen one.
Vaccines are very important and most make sense but we are at what appears to be a tipping point where profits may go over the general well-being of the public.
We need proper oversight.
[Citation needed]. Vaccines are practically sold at break-even cost, and in fact in the last few decades many companies have exited the vaccine market entirely because there was so little money to be made.
> as well as there being protections for the industry to prevent people for suing them if a vaccine turns out to be actually unsafe
These liability protections exist because vaccines are so unprofitable. If you didn't have indemnity for a product that both
a) gets distributed to almost everyone, and so even tiny probabilities of side effects result in large absolute numbers of cases
b) has a tiny profit margin
no one would ever take on that risk, and the only way for vaccines to get made would be from nationalized industries.
I believe the vaccines them selves are safe and tested.
I’m sure you didn’t mean non-elemental forms of mercury are safe, but to forestall someone’s taking that meaning: “Organic” mercury compounds can be far more toxic than elemental mercury.
See dimethyl mercury . A single drop exposure (through a latex glove) killed a scientist 10 months after exposure.
Agree with your post, the amount of thimerosal (Hg-based preservative) made it a non-issue in vaccine safety.
Any insights on why it has been banned from childhood vaccines since 2001? (see. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index....)
The likely reason it was removed from those that did have it was "people are making a fuss about it, why not remove the ammo even if it's harmless?"
- on one side you have old, relatively low-quality studies proving vaccines to be safe.
- on the other side, recent studies forcing us to re-think what we thought we knew. For instance, aluminium was previously thought to be eliminated via urine but has been proven to be able to migrate to the brain via the immune system where it can create chronic inflammation.
I think that we will quietly move away from aluminium-based vaccine for safety reasons. So this is terrific news if it offers another path for vaccination.
Vaccines are obviously "statistically" safe, but our knowledge on the matter is still evolving. And it's best to keep an open, scientific mind on the subject.
Some recent research papers on aluminium and the brain: https://www.sciencedirect.com/search/advanced?qs=aluminium%2...
A blog post from a parent that really helped me understand the POV of some "smart" anti-vaxxers: https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018
The HLA gene SNPs can help indicate reaction to vaccine subproteins and the immune response, or the accumulation of adjuvants like Aluminum, Mercury, etc in some people (scientific studies are starting to emerge on this). I know of three different vaccine+recipients (flu, polio, rabies) who suffered from or are still suffering from Guillane-Barre syndrome which started within days of injections. My son now has tendon flexor issues and had transient synovitis in the leg/hip near his chicken pox vaccine injection. The doctors dismiss any connection to the vaccine with zero data to back up their claim when in fact it by far the largest factor (detailed analysis of my son's leg, material accumulation, and genetic testing could shed more light).
“Phenoxyethanol is thought to cause central nervous system damage in exposed infants.”
This is just 1 example and a quick reference since I’m on my phone, but there are a number of research papers on this chemical. Again, this is just 1 reference, there are a number of chemicals used as preservatives. A good comparison would be spraying vegetables. Harmful chemicals are used. There are good sides and bad sides to spraying, but at the same time there are many people who choose to purchase organic vs non.
Which is a statement that is in no way supported by any data we have on the use of vaccines. Facts don't care about what you think.
Your children are many many times more likely to get seriously injured by the diseases prevented by a vaccine, than possible side effects said vaccine.
I don't know how you can go "my gut feeling is better than your statistics" while putting children in measurable danger, then expecting people to be understanding of your position.
You don't have to engage, and in fact I can't imagine any rational way for you to do so. But you can simply not respond rather than turn the conversation into an attack on the other person.
Seriously, shame on you.
Don't take my word for it, the inserts themselves state most of the risks from death all the way to shedding live bio-engineered virus onto the immunocompromised (so much for that argument). Plus part of the deal that the government had after removing vaccine manufactures for any liability for injury or deaths was to have a "database" of reported injuries for the public to analyze the safety for themselves
So you see, we are not crazy, we are people that have children and we research what we believe is best for them. Following one's conscious is a one of the ideas allowed by our founding fathers. This image sums it up best: https://i.imgur.com/PdsJLLD.png
(Moreover, if some people is not vaccinating their children, it makes me more alert not to skip/delay the vaccines of my children.)
(It's a problem for the children that can't get the vaccines for medical reasons.)
About the last link : Note that there are 400 cases in 40 years, so it's like 10 case per year. Probably the trip to the hospital and back is more dangerous. Also, the first case looks like a sepsis that is almost surely not related to the vaccine. The last one in the page says that the diagnosis was "H. Influenza meningitis;" that is unrelated to the vaccine. Some other cases are not so clear or have previous illness. Some look like an allergic reaction that perhaps may be caused by the vaccine, but I only look at them for a few seconds and I'm not a medical doctor. Do you have a link to a list of cases that are filtered to exclude the cases that are obviously not caused by the vaccine?
> Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.2
For proof of this look at Canada, a non-EU country which has been unable to collaborate in any meaningful way in the sciences. (hopefully obvious sarcasm)
Brexit's more akin to what would happen if Quebec seceded.
So much fear mongering. It was a referendum, decided by popular vote (a concept I hear is really catching on in American electorate politics).
Leaving the EU will impact British academic research that's funded by the EU or done in collaboration with researchers in the EU. This isn't really in dispute - even in the unrealistic best case scenario of the UK negotiating the exact same access to all of this they have now, it'll take disruptive time to do so.
Maybe Oracle gave them the services for free in exchange for attaching their name to any resulting discoveries? If that's the case, I think that's a tradeoff i'm ok with. But ya, it is a little odd.