Massive measles outbreak - thank you, Andrew Fucking Wakefield

Very bad idea. The tactic Wakefield is using is to try to create the impression that the value of vaccines is debatable. In any short debate a substantial proportion of the audience will either conclude the person who lost actually won, or at the least conclude that the subject matter of the debate is in great doubt.

Well educated people are convinced using facts and reason, less well educated people are convinced by authoritative statements made by someone they trust. The former already think Wakefield is a dangerous quack. The latter are not going to be won over by debate: on the contrary they would see a debate as a good reason to stick with their faith in whatever authority they already accept.

I got all of my childhood shots after the age of 5 - I had previously had most of the usual diseases [though not mumps, I got mumps in my mid 20s]

Back in the day they just lined everybody up in the gymnasium and ran us through the lines for various shots. I was under the impression that to go to school required it, and it was universal - no kid was allowed in school without shots. I asked my husband, and my brother and they agree, everybody got the shots, nobody skipped out.

I just came in here to say that:

  1. The comment about the germs killing anyone was a joke - I thought clearly - emphasizing my doubt of it actually BEING possible. Duh?

  2. I’m not a troll…I registered when I was practically a kid. I know what your thinking…I planned this 10 years ago so I would have troll immunity, right? :rolleyes:

  3. I’m not playing as if I don’t understand, I’M AN ACCOUNTANT DAMN IT, NOT A SCIENTIST! I have a high school education in biology. I have read several studies that point me in either direction of the vaccination debate. I don’t know the nitty-gritty science behind all of it - though I do try - there are too many things in this world to research all of them properly. It’s hard enough figuring out what to eat these days.

  4. I feel that my gut instinct is not unreasonable though you are playing like it is. I see that there is an argument on the issue, vaccination is a relatively new science compared to the depth of study of other sciences, and there are logical arguments with research on both sides.

You are currently not doing something, never had issues with it before, and someone is trying to sway you to take preventative measures against it. Meanwhile there are some logical arguments against the measures. Therefore my action is to do nothing until there is no evidence.

And you are calling these people greedy for not wanting immunizations, which they view to be potentially dangerous and under-researched, because your snowflake who can’t get immunizations needs immunity through me? Bashing me is not a reasonable method to sway me, and neither is dehumanizing me.

Yes, I am afraid of entering a world were immunizations are mandatory to be part of society. Is that so wrong?

I know, I was being facetious. When LavenderBlue posted here awhile back about her plans to debate a local antivaxer on the radio I discouraged the idea, noting that such types commonly employ dodges like Gish galloping to overwhelm opponents with irrelevant and misinterpreted effluvia.

If only we could get Jenny McCarthy to say “I’M AN EX-B-MOVIE ACTRESS, NOT A SCIENTIST”.

Announcing that you have a “high school education in biology” and then suggesting your gut instinct trumps what professionals in immunology and public health tell us is, well, kind of arrogant.

Vaccination goes back hundreds of years (do a search on smallpox, for instance), a ton of research has gone into demonstrating the safety and efficacy of current vaccines, and it is not a he says-she says deal - the vaccines-are-bad camp has a tiny amount of flawed research to back its claims compared to the mountain of evidence on the other side.

The same goes for seat belts, fire safety laws and other precautionary measures that most of us haven’t had “issues” with. It’s nice to prevent those issues before they occur.

You’re referring to vulnerable people who need to be protected through herd immunity as “precious snowflake(s)”, but protest that immunization is “dehumanizing me”? Sheesh, get a grip.

Adults are not generally required to be immunized except in special circumstances (i.e. in the military or for job/travel reasons). If it upsets you to hear that you can spread infectious disease by not getting a pertussis or flu shot, turn off the TV.

200 years long enough for you?

You are substantially dismissing and downplaying the amount of evidence we have about the efficacy of vaccination. This is not new age guesswork; there are literally centuries of experiments and evidence to back up the view that immunizing people is a good thing. Take the point that smallpox has been eradicated and polio nearly so - it was not all that long ago that these diseases were feared by the general public, that death or a lifetime of disability would follow in their wake. Nowadays we barely think of them. That’s what immunization has done for the world.

Do some people view them as “potentially dangerous and underresearched”? Yes, but people’s views are not always reflective of reality.

Are they potentially dangerous? To a very small extent - nothing is risk-free and there is always the potential for allergic reactions and other bad side effects to any medication.

Are they underresearched? No. Not remotely.

And are they riskier than going unimmunized? *Hell *no.

Yes. Because the alternative is the return of epidemics of preventable diseases and deaths, a far more fearsome - and rightly so - proposition.

I recognize that your feelings are being hurt by the implication that not getting immunized is a selfish act. To which I refer you to my OP: there’s a measles epidemic going on because too many people decided that they didn’t want a vaccination, an epidemic that affects not only them but the very young, the very old and the otherwise-immunocompromised. In Wales 77 people have been hospitalized and one man is dead so far. And all for nothing.

So suck it up, Bucky and get the shots. The life you’re risking may not be your own.

Correct - I got the names swapped around.

Regards,
Shodan

No, Jackmannii, I never suggested my high school education trumps modern science. I suggested that my lack of higher-level understanding on the issue prevented me from making a fully informed decision. Furthermore I identified the pressures of modern life as a limiting factor in my knowledge. I DO argue that my logic on the issue is sound. You talk about seat belts as an example…yes, I understand seat belts. That is a very simple situation - it requires only a very basic understanding of physics to understand why a seat belt is important. You tried to apply that to an issue as complex as biology. That’s a joke. I was simply stating that my logic was not faulty: where I am unsure about an issue and am waiting for a more reliable information base, and I don’t perceive any immediate threat to my person, I find it reasonable to maintain course until I am more certain. That is reasonable, no?

No arrogance, whatsoever - humility would be the right word. I admit no special knowledge in this issue and rely on more intelligent people to handle it.

I was not saying that immunizations are in some way dehumanizing, I was saying that by polarizing the debate and demonizing the opponent you are hurting your argument, not helping it. I want human suffering no more than you, I am compassionate being, I hope.

And, I thought of course, that it was clear that I know we aren’t CURRENTLY required to get immunizations, rather I am afraid of a FUTURE scenario. I’m not on the anti “side” or the pro “side”. I am on the “want what is best for future generations” side. This means carefully weighing in on all ideas, even though they may seem foolish.

I know that the anti-vaxers are a small minority…but that does not mean it doesn’t warrant consideration. I may be fairly ignorant in matters of biology, but I understand that a majority DOES NOT mean correctness, it means acceptance. There are instances - such as the world being round, not flat - that the majority is wrong.

To Gyrate; my feelings aren’t hurt. I was simply trying to clarify an issue I did not understand. I NEVER knew that I was supposed to be getting immunizations to prevent OTHERS from getting sick. No one told me. Ever!

Also, as to the amount of knowledge on the subject; 200 years is a long time relative to my life, yes. Relative to the knowledge of medical history it is not. Relative to human history it is a speck. I am simply suggesting that we might NOT know as much as we think about these immunizations and that although I value human life, if I think the human race itself could be at stake on this issue I think it is worth waiting. Again, I don’t know, I’m an accountant.

Back to the discussion: I can’t find it right now - I’ll keep looking - but haven’t some viruses/germs altered DNA? Would that be a danger - unknowingly introducing an immunization that negatively altered DNA?

On whole I think the issue is more complex than proponents are making it out to be.

That’s a shitty argument.

The majority of the informed and educated is a better metric. Those have known the world is round for a couple thousand years or more.

Likewise, the same majority of the informed and educated have known vaccines are better than the alternative for centuries now.

And even as uninformed and uneducated as some people are, certainly, we don’t have kids running around with pox marks or in wheelchairs or dead in coffins from smallpox anymore. Nor (except in isolated parts of the world) do we fear our kids will ever get smallpox or polio.

And, for a couple generations at least, we didn’t fear our kids getting measles, mumps, whooping cough, or several other diseases. And it’s only now that people have stopped having their kids vaccinated that ‘magically’ these diseases are popping back up.

That’s more than a majority opinion or a newly accepted scientific theory - that’s observable fucking reality.

Unfortunately, the cite says nothing about being immunized as a young adult, nor my personal gap between shots (especially since I don’t remember if I got the 4-6 year shot).

Not sure what this means for me. Hmm.

AnthonyElite, the last known case of smallpox in the wild, as it were, was in October 1977. This was *entirely *due to widespread enforcement of vaccinations against it. Except for samples in some (really well-secured and with strict protocols in place) bio labs, mostly governmental, the smallpox virus no longer exists.

The point people are trying to make, which you may be missing, is that while vaccinations can have some bad side effects, the incidence is very low and (usually) not particularly harmful. Getting the actual disease being vaccinated against, however, is usually *very *harmful and can be deadly. Witness this family, who were anti-vaccine until their son got tetanus and nearly died of it.

Antivax views have gotten ample consideration and have been shot down, not because they represent minority opinion but because they are deeply and provably wrong. The individual (Wakefield) who sparked this thread is a good example of a “minority” researcher who conducted heavily flawed, fraudulent and unethical research, while collecting huge sums of money from a lawyers’ group hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers (and participated in other gross conflicts of interest). His “landmark” research paper got retracted not because it represented a minority viewpoint but because it was (to use a highly scientific term) bullshit.

Some infectious disease organisms control DNA expression and take over cell function as part of the natural infectious process. Vaccinating against these organisms prevents this from happening.

Your doctor can order a blood test that will determine whether or not you need a booster shot.

Viruses do that. Vaccinations do not and cannot do that. You have correctly identified yet another excellent reason why vaccinations are better than natural diseases.

I posted this back in 2008 - a quick and dirty run-down of what the diseases we vaccinate against look like, and what they do.

I guess I should do more research and update my statistics, since this was from 2008.

What do you consider a “reliable information base”? The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Harvard Medical School support vaccination. What proof do you need or what organization needs to say “vaccination is safe” for you to consider the matter closed?

No. No, it’s not.

Vaccination science has been around since Jenner, with earlier attempts at inoculation dating all the way back to around 1000.

We know how vaccines work. We know the statistics regarding the miniscule chances of very rare adverse reactions to vaccines and how those relate to the much, much more common chances of a dangerous or deadly reaction to the diseases the vaccines prevent.

We know that vaccines are not related to autism. They are not related to diabetes. They are not related to asthma. They are not related to ADHD. They are not related to any of the other dozens of conditions that anti-vaccine propagandists claim.

They do not work for 100% of people (some people do not seroconvert, others do not develop a complete antibody response). They do work for a significant percentage of the population.

Vaccination is a simple decision. Vaccinate yourself and your children, unless there is a legitimate established medical need not to do so.

We also know that vaccination helps those around you, which, in the long run, helps you.

One of the sickening things in the latest sets of apologia is the use of ignorance as an excuse.

“I’m not an expert, but” or “It’s not really settled that” or whatever.

No matter how much AnthonyElite claims to the contrary, his ignorance is not as good as our knowledge. And that’s his argument in a nutshell - his (and anti-vaxxers) ignorance is as good as our knowledge.

Yes. The measles outbreak that was the subject of the OP is a good example of what happens when anti-vaccine lies reduce herd immunity.

Yes. “I’m not an expert…” Well, there ARE experts in this area, and they understand the science, and although there are a few crackpot exceptions, the expert consensus is that vaccines are safe and save lives.

“It’s not really settled…” Yes. Yes, it is. Again, with the exception of a few crackpots and proven conmen (Wakefield, Geiers).

Bollocks. Vaccinations pre-date practically every part of modern medicine and treatment/prevention of disease. Vaccination is older than germ theory, older than washing your hands between patients. You’re not arguing from a stance of simple ignorance, but a stance of blatant misinformation. Unless you think we should stop using antibiotics and anti-septic procedures as well, then your “because history” argument makes … no, it still doesn’t make sense, but it’d at least be a consistent argument.