Anti-vaccine arguments

So in light of all the anti-vaccine madness I’ve been reading about lately, I wanted to offer my thoughts on some of the common arguments I’ve heard. Why? I suppose because they are rattling around in my head and need release. (My disclaimer is that I am no doctor, and am not a replacement for the medical advice they can offer. I am just someone with a moderate understanding of epidemiology and access to Pubmed.) I welcome any suggestions/corrections!

"In doing a little research on the internet, I've found that there are many doctors and people who say vaccines are not safe."

Of course, "doctors" on the internet are always trustworthy educators.

"Some of the diseases that vaccinations have meant to eradicate have been making a comeback lately. Obviously vaccines aren't working."

Gee, I wonder why they're making comebacks. Because people aren’t vaccinating! I can't believe this one gets said with a straight face. Even vaccinated people are at risk, because vaccination is usually not 100% (varies from 70-99, depending on a variety of factors). You depend on the people around you getting vaccinated, to up your coverage (it's called herd immunity). Three people at 90% coverage (90% + 90% + 90%) are better than one person with coverage (90% + 0% + 0%). That's math for ya.

"I don’t remember what the exact references are, but…"

Really? no references? I'm shocked. Why do I suspect your “references” have the word youtube in them…?

There’s more to this one, too, because the burden of proof actually resides with those making the original claim. Science generally works fairly poorly when one group of people call the shots, making wild claims and expecting the scientists to scramble about disproving them. Since there is no limit to how many of these claims people can make (the limit is the end of human imagination), you can see how it would become an exercise in futility if scientists had to disprove every single one of these that came about. You need to have some evidence to back yourself up before you can make a claim and expect to be taken seriously. I wonder why Jenny McCarthy hasn’t spent some of her oodles of cash on a population-level study on vaccines and autism? If she’s so sure vaccines cause autism, why not investigate it further, accumulate some evidence for her point of view? Why aren’t people demanding this from her before they blindly throw their faith at her? It boggles my mind. (Suffice it to say many studies have been done by the scientific community on this, and no study has shown a causative link between vaccines and autism. ).

"Babies' immune systems can't handle the vaccine schedule."

How so? Babies' immune systems are bombarded by millions of bacteria, viruses, and even cancers on a daily basis. Their immune system needs exposure to these things in order to become stronger (or "smarter", however you'd like to view it). Vaccines carrying weakened viruses/bacteria are not a problem.

"Babies’ immune systems are underdeveloped and giving them viruses & chemicals in an unnatural way changes the way their immune system responds, which can change it for the worst."

Most medical interventions are not "natural" (whatever that means). Most people used to die from simple infections, too. Do I want to go back to that era? No thanks. As for the claim it ruins their immune system and changes it for the worst, I'd like to see the references on that one. I'm guessing the "google university" is responsible.

"There seems to be a link between the increase in vaccines and the rise in health problems like autism, diabetes, allergies, asthma, ADD, learning disabilities, Gulf War Syndrome, and many others. In babies they have caused anaphylactic shock, seizures, shaken baby syndrome, death and other problems."

There's probably also been a rise in car accidents, fast food eating, obesity, depression, and other such things, but these don't get blamed on vaccines. The problems on this list are so diverse, I wonder how anyone rational can swallow that they all have one cause? (and "shaken baby syndrome"? huh? isn't the name self-evident?). Bad reactions can happen to vaccines, it's true. The thing is, people are really bad risk estimators. They think, what if I'm the one in a million that has a bad reaction to the vaccine? But they don't think, what if my child develops a vaccine-preventable illness? There's a much greater risk from the latter than the former, but people still go with the latter. They are risk-maximizing. Risk perception is really key here, and it's all about what fear-mongering is going on in the media. Right now, vaccines are the enemy, not polio. If polio makes a comeback because of people not immunizing their kids, maybe polio will become tomorrow's poster child of the media, and vaccines will be back "in". Who knows? Moral of the story is you can't trust the media for your medical information.

The sad thing is there actually are many, many people who have died from preventable illnesses, or fallen ill from them in the recent past, because people have chosen not to immunize. These include vaccinated people for the above reason of vaccines not being 100%. If someone chooses not to vaccinate their kids, they are putting others at risk as well. They are depending on others’ immunity to protect their own children. This is unfair, and incredibly selfish behaviour. In my opinion, the parents of these kids should be letting other parents at their school/daycare know that they have unvaccinated children. To not let them know would be irresponsible - they have a right to move their children to another daycare.

"Just look at the ingredient list of vaccines. Lots of scary stuff in there."

Coffee contains 1000 different chemicals, yet it's fine for you to drink. Today's technology has made it possible to measure the ingredients of anything to infinitesimal levels, and anything that sounds exotic is deemed as "toxic". But it's the dose that makes the poison. I've heard people make fun of that #1 rule of toxicology - yet considering we live our lives by it, it's beyond irrational to me that people mock it. You can overdose on water - you get hyponatremia. You can ingest small amounts of arsenic - it's in apple seeds.

"If you read up on the side effects some vaccines produce, such as the Hep B one, you’ll be surprised."

I'll take a side effect to Hep B, thank you very much. I'd most definitely take a side effect to polio.

"Vaccination is a huge business and pharmaceutical companies profit from them. No one profits from speaking against vaccination, so who would you trust?”

No one profits from speaking up against vaccines? Are you kidding me? The entire alternative medicine industry stands to profit. There are lots of sites telling you what supplements you can take to ward off the flu or other illnesses. Jenny McCarthy is making tonnes of money off her anti-vaccine stance. Sorry, but that one's completely bunk.

And I’m pretty sure that vaccines, as one time use only, aren't as big business for pharmaceutical companies as other drugs are. Drug companies actually donate vaccines to third world countries (and then get accused of performing eugenics on them), although it is true that they mark them up in the westernized countries. But I'm sure it would benefit them more if people were actually falling ill and requiring vast amounts of drugs to get them better. Regardless though, this one is a logical fallacy. You can speculate as to a company's motives ‘til the cows come home, the only thing that really matters is if their product is good for people or not. If they produce a good product that is supported by evidence, then do we really care if it was developed out of a desire to make money or not? Some people may, but you'd have to acknowledge that you were punishing the company simply for that reason, not because their product was bad.

Skepticism is always good, but to base an entire conspiracy on the fact that you think the medical community has been paid off by pharmaceutical companies is really dangerous, and pure speculation. I actually find this one super offensive - I refuse to believe that most doctors would harm their patients for money. jesus.

"From what I've studied of the history of many of these diseases, many of them were well on their way out before vaccines were created to eradicate them."

I probably know the least about this one, so I have left it for last. I welcome anyone else's input on it. I have no idea what population they're talking about, or if they're just taking some total, or what. I don't actually know what the stats are, but I can think off the top of my head of several reasons why disease incidence rates would be low in a population (and keep in mind, a low incidence rate does not mean a disease is "on its way out"). Simply having a better understanding of the transmission of a disease would reduce it (better hygiene, better sanitation), faster knowledge dissemination and ability to quarantine, and better drugs to manage those who do get the disease are all reasons.

Once again, I don't actually know what the stats are, but they might also be using an epidemic curve to support this. Epidemics generally work this way: If the y axis is number of people, and the x axis is time, the number of people infected spikes way up in the beginning. Then as people either die, or recover from their illness and gain immunity, the number of infected people goes down until it remains low in the population. People who have recovered from the illness have immunity, and so aren't likely to develop the disease again, so the disease continues to dwindle until it remains at a low incidence rate. Until, of course, new people come along, who do not have immunity. That's why you vaccinate. If you don't vaccinate, epidemics can occur again as long as the bacteria and virus have not been eradicated from the population. I've heard people say that because a vaccination was introduced at the declining end of an epidemic, it was useless. Simply not true. Also not true that because other things like better sanitation and hygiene lowered the incidence of a disease, a vaccine isn't necessary. Is it acceptable behaviour to just say, well, since that disease isn't decimating populations, we shouldn't introduce a vaccine and try to eradicate it? Who cares about those people who are still contracting the disease, right? That's not ok in my books.

Anyways, that’s it, rant over.

War On Science - thanks Wired!

This is a really long read, but well worth it!! A great article by Wired on the spread of irrationality happening right now with regard to the anti-vaccine movement.

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

They hit the nail on the head with many points in this article.

Decriminalizing Drugs = A Good Thing

This was some particularly happy news to me yesterday (link is below). Add to this the Holland experience, where they have actually closed jails in the recent past because they are empty. Meanwhile, in Canada and the U.S., evidence like this is ignored or downplayed because of our government's heroic efforts to validate their drug-war stance by claiming if we were to decriminalize drugs, everyone and their dog would start doing them, and just think about the shambles society would be in then, oh my! What I think is really going on is that people simply don't agree that drug use is "morally good" (apparently someone has made them an authority on this type of thing and the rest of us have to follow suit) and want their drug policy to reflect their moralistic feelings on them. However, realizing that this alone may not be enough to back a huge, tax-funded, forever unsuccessful war against them, they also have to pretend that it really is about health (and some of them I'm sure honestly believe that, despite the ever-growing base of evidence to the contrary). For example, why is Harper's government still trying to close down Insite, the safe injection house in Vancouver, despite the success it has had (i.e. lower infection rates, fewer overdoses)? ...Why, because it's not really about public health, it's about making a statement. In reality, prohibiting drugs make the "drug problem" worse, and it ruins lives.

But enough from me... and yay harm reduction!


The following is from: Freemarketmojo


According to The Economist, the evidence from Portugal since 2001 shows that decriminalizing drug use and possession has “benefits and no harmful side-effects”:

Officials believe that, by lifting fears of prosecution, the policy has encouraged addicts to seek treatment. This bears out their view that criminal sanctions are not the best answer. “Before decriminalisation, addicts were afraid to seek treatment because they feared they would be denounced to the police and arrested,” says Manuel Cardoso, deputy director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Portugal’s main drugs-prevention and drugs-policy agency. “Now they know they will be treated as patients with a problem and not stigmatised as criminals.”

The number of addicts registered in drug-substitution programmes has risen from 6,000 in 1999 to over 24,000 in 2008, reflecting a big rise in treatment (but not in drug use). Between 2001 and 2007 the number of Portuguese who say they have taken heroin at least once in their lives increased from just 1% to 1.1%. For most other drugs, the figures have fallen: Portugal has one of Europe’s lowest lifetime usage rates for cannabis. And most notably, heroin and other drug abuse has decreased among vulnerable younger age-groups, according to Mr Cardoso.

The share of heroin users who inject the drug has also fallen, from 45% before decriminalisation to 17% now, he says, because the new law has facilitated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Drug addicts now account for only 20% of Portugal’s HIV cases, down from 56% before. “We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals.”

The FDA and E-Cigs... Shoddy Science

The FDA recently announced its findings re: the electronic cigarette. It was oddly done, and that disappoints me (more details in the link). I am baffled as to why they only tested two manufacturers (one reputable - NJoy, the other not so much), and didn't include results from their control. They also conflated the fact that TSNA's were present in detectable levels, however failed to show the actual concentration, and failed to mention that at low levels these are not worrisome (and, interestingly, didn't mention that nicotine replacement aids like Nicorette products ALSO contain TSNAs). Sounds kind of fishy to me.

The FDA Crusade Against E-Cigs

The link above is to a much greater explanation of the flaws in the FDA's report. For the record, I actually agree that the e-cigs should be tested to ensure that contamination does not occur. But this is all splitting hairs when we're comparing the e-cigs to smoking real cigarettes...

Health Canada issues warning about Champix

Well, more focus on the e-cig in this blog... I'm not too sure how the hypocrisy of Health Canada regarding the e-cigs could be better displayed than by this latest warning from them about Champix having "serious adverse psychiatric effects", and yet still allowing it on the market, while the e-cig is banned.

Warning issued re: Champix

Champix is capable of stirring suicidal and homicidal thoughts in people.

So what does this mean re: the the e-cig? The e-cig was banned on simple suspicion of having some adverse effects on people's physical health. There is no evidence (in fact, there is evidence to the contrary) of the e-cig having any adverse effects. In fact, all evidence points to it being a much safer alternative to the conventional cigarette (which obviously has well-known adverse effects). It is still possible that the propylene glycol used in the e-cig to simulate smoke may turn out to be not great for inhalation over the long term; however, there is little reason to suspect that this possible adverse effect is anywhere near the adverse effect of inhaling smoke over a similar time frame, and certainly, all studies so far have shown that it is a much safer alternative to smoking.

Not sure what else to say on the topic. It just doesn't add up. I will say that lately it seems there is little point in arguing with our Harper government; they do what they want, regardless of what might be best, or what people might want. Bill 44 is prime example. But I digress. Maybe I've just developed some 'learned helplessness' lately...