That’s a rather large assumption.
The hard-core antivax position is that vaccines never eliminated or drastically reduced any disease.
You can link to graphs showing incidence for measles, polio, smallpox and numerous other vaccine preventable diseases, showing them more or less stable (with periodic ups and downs), until vaccines were introduced, at which point they begin a marked decline and are eventually eradicated, locally or globally. The antivax comeback is to point to other factors like “sanitation” (which cannot possibly explain dramatic disease incidence declines in modern times) or to jigger the graphs in some way, or use only death rate data instead of disease incidence (which mutes the drop-off following introduction of vaccines), or claim a medical conspiracy, or…
You can’t win arguing with antivax dingbats. Save the evidence for people capable of rational thought.
Color me…deeply shocked. :dubious: Antivax beliefs remain endemic in the chiropractic community, despite attempts to immunize it with logic.
What information is not in public record here?
Public record: Smallpox remained in much of the non-Western world (parts Africa, Asia and South America) in 1967, still causing 10 to 15 million annual cases and 1.5 to 2 million annual death and many more severely disfigured or blinded. A huge intensified effort to vaccinate those areas (and monitor and contain) was undertaken, The Smallpox Eradication Unit, and by less than 11 years later the last endemic case occurred (in Somalia). About two years later smallpox was declared eradicated from the planet.
It really is exactly as MEB lampoons it.
In the case of polio - isn’t it true that improved sanitation and hygiene actually made things worse in some sense? I recall reading that in earlier centuries people would generally catch the infection very early on and receive natural immunity as a result. It was improved sanitation that led to people getting infected later in life, where the effects were more debilitating and a vaccination program being required. This is quite possibly a very garbled memory, so I would welcome correction.
I had not heard that before but looking it up it does seem to be true.
Yes, it does seem that before improved sanitiation most got it early and mild but that improved sanitation resulted in it infections later and more commonly more seerely.
Similar story with Hep A btw.
Frankly, I suspect arguing logically with this particular person is going to me more like wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
The only possible ‘winning’ tactic here-- and I’m not saying there’s much of a chance of it working – is to turn the question back and ask the anti-vaxxer what acceptable proof would be. Or perhaps get them talking about why this is important to them, if this is someone you actually care about. Either way, as mentioned you’re never going to use logic to get them out of a situation they didn’t use logic to get into: they only possible victory is getting them to realize in some tiny way that they didn’t get to their position by logic and reasonable proof.
That is very interesting. Thanks for the info!
Generally true.
The upside of better sanitation obviously has included major declines in or eradication of major killer diseases like cholera and typhoid - but a downside was increasing the severity of polio when it struck older children and adults.
It’s hard to believe the antivax crowd wants raw sewage to run in the streets again so that kids can theoretically go without polio vaccine. Then again, not much surprises me about these people.
Strictly speaking, isn’t vaccination doing almost exactly the same thing as catching polio early minus all the raw sewage?
Thanks for the cite! I couldn’t dig up verification for my memory. It was not an easy Google.
Absolutely not! You don’t actually contract the disease, meaning you don’t get any of the nasty side effects, either.
I guess you could say that’s “almost” the same thing, but tell that to any crippled little children walking around.
I believe the vaccine introduces a strain that doesn’t reproduce while the sewage introduces one that does. I could technically fit that into almost, but I think that wouldn’t serve any purpose. I accept the correction.
For typhoid, yes. For polio, not really.
Increased sanitation actually led to the increase in really serious polio cases in the early twentieth century. The later in life that one contracts polio, the more likely it is to cause serious damage. Before the improvements to sanitation, many infants got mild polio infections and developed resistance. As sanitation improved, it became common for people to have their first exposure to the polio virus at a later age. The really serious cases - the ones that led to death or permanent paralysis - became more common.
Public health workers at the time thought the problem was due to poor sanitation, which was most common among poor people. They tried to fix it by cleaning up the slums. While I’m sure this improved general health in these areas, it actually made polio worse. The problem was only solved with the development of the polio vaccine.
A PLoS blog gives the story of the Salk vaccine and points to the journal articles that reported the results of the epidemiological studies undertaken to prove it worked:
Essentially, in the first study a large number of children in grades 1 to 3 were randomly assigned to receive either the vaccine or a placebo. It was found that the actually vaccinated children developed polio at less than half the rate of the unvaccinated children. Since the vaccine was the only difference between the two groups, the conclusion was that the vaccine prevented polio.
It may be possible to quibble with this, but it would not be easy. If you want to invoke some other factor as having reduced the rate of polio among the vaccinated children, you have to explain how that other factor was strangely correlated with whether or not you got an actual vaccine. Public hygiene, for example, would have been exactly the same for both vaccinated and placebo groups, on average. Both groups got an injection, and the children, parents (and probably experimenters themselves at the time) did not know whether a given child got the actual vaccine or a fake, so any factors surrounding the vaccine – the injection, the process, how people responded to the injection – would’ve been the same. You can’t argue <i>any</i> change that occured over time, because these children were living during the same time, experiencing the same events – radiation from nuke tests, sunspots, fluoridated water, weather, everything.
A much more sophisticated advocate would argue the change in polio rates was just a statistical anomaly, but unfortunately this was a very large study – hundreds of thousands of children – so the odds of that kind of statistical fluke are very, very small.
Anyway, there is no “proof” in science, there is only disproof, and the theory that vaccines eradicated polio survives because (1) no one has ever been able to disprove it, and (2) every other candidate theory has been readily disproved. We remain open to the possibility that a brand-new unthought-of before theory will someday explain the disappearance of polio without invoking the Salk/Sabin vaccine, but unless and until someone provides the theory and it survives an empirical test or two, we need not bother considering it. Science is practical: if it has a working explanation, it need not seek additional explanations merely for completeness’ sake. It can wait until an alternate is forced upon it by weight of evidence.