Why are people Anti-Vaxers?

[Kaeth]

The author of the open letter is an immunologist, and basically has a more nuanced view of the whole matter. The summary:

Tetyana Obukhanych has far from a "nuanced" view; she is anti-vax through and through. And she has had her entire anti-vaccine book debunked by numerous other medical professionals (on the merit of its claims, which can on occasion, as in this case, be just as false or misleading coming from an immunologist as from some guy on Reddit). She is not the only trained medical professional to adopt a crank ideology, pushing half truths and misleading the public with cherry-picked information, though she is one of the few anti-vax immunologists I've heard of.

Like most things, it's not clear cut. In the main, I think vaccinations are a good thing to do, but that doesn't mean that ALL vaccines are necessary (hi, tetanus), or worth the risk, or that the schedule is necessarily good (ie, too much of a good thing in one go is bad).

The "too much in one go" argument holds little or no merit. Newborns are exposed to more live pathogens shortly after birth than can be found (live or dead) in the entire vaccine schedule through their teen years.

Meanwhile, some of the same proponents of a "revised" vaccine schedule -- as well as devout non-vaxxers -- purport the supremacy of "natural immunity": contracting chicken pox is somehow healthier than getting a shot. So having a full-blown varicella infection is less taxing on children than receiving an injection of weakened virus? A preventive modality which typically confers immunity for 10 to 20 years while resulting in little or no symptoms is less "taxing" on the immune system than a fully symptomatic infection?

Tetanus is one of those very serious, but slowly-progressing infections, like rabies, against which a vaccine is highly effective after the actual disease exposure. Can't argue with you there, as long as a person who's been exposed receives prompt medical attention. Didn't get the tetanus vaccine as a child? Okay, whatever. Don't go for a booster after you step on a nail in your grandma's attic? Good luck.

[Thage]

One of several reasons, I've found:

1) "Muh freedoms." These sorts are usually convinced that only true freedom can be found in an anarchy where no sacrifices are made to facilitate living peacefully in large groups working together to the betterment of everyone in the group.

2) Because they're still clinging to the autism scare drummed up by a con artist who lost his medical license and an idiotic pseudocelebrity. Essentially, this group is full of people stupid enough to think autism is worse than watching your child slowly die of an easily-prevented disease.

3) Science denial. This group is full of people who outright deny any benefits scientific advancements have made available, or are too stupid to google up long words to see what they mean, and refuse to vaccinate because any pharmaceuticals are bad in their view. This group also includes the special brand of stupid who thinks herd immunity doesn't exist just because they've never personally benefited from it (but fail to take into account that the opposite is true, and how these outbreaks of measles, smallpox, and other previously-eradicated diseases are only popping up in areas with a large antivax population, proportionally-speaking)

4) Outright, rampant stupidity. An idiot is easy to mislead and scare into following your agenda, especially when that agenda is anti-intellectual and includes eroding trust in medical experts (by implying or outright saying they're in cahoots with the vaccine producers to poison your children), using the presence of scary words on the label to convince people vaccines are poison, or promoting misunderstandings of what vaccines do (or outright lying about what they do) to accomplish the same result.

- - - Updated - - -

So much about 'herd immunity'.

Well that would summary my thoughts about this topic. Mandatory vaccines are just bad, why people cannot have free choice what to do with their bodies? Isn't it same thing just like with abortion - so many people are shouting about that every women should have 'choice', why not everyone should have choice about if they want vaccine for them or their children? And if there is choice then people that want it should pay for it, not everyone paying for it in tax.

Your right to get sick stops where my niece's right not to die from smallpox begins.

[Kraenen]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned this but this makes a whole lot more sense if you simply measure the preference for "purity" like from Jonathan Haidt's moral values. I'm guessing anti-vaxers are more likely to place heavy emphasis in water/food purity as well, which seems to be the case for Bill Maher (IIRC). I wouldn't be surprised if (other than Maher obviously) they tended to lean more to the right (religious purity), with some environmentalists thrown in. I dunno, armchair psych here, but I think ultimately this stems from the very primitive impulse for purity of essence and purity of things entering your body.

[Teleros]

Tetyana Obukhanych has far from a "nuanced" view; she is anti-vax through and through.

Perhaps, but I don't see a problem with what she wrote in that open letter. I mean sure, if she's peddling falsehoods there then that's one thing, but if what she's saying there is accurate, how is that a problem?

And she has had her entire anti-vaccine book debunked by numerous other medical professionals (on the merit of its claims

I'm entirely unaware of her book.

She is not the only trained medical professional to adopt a crank ideology, pushing half truths and misleading the public with cherry-picked information, though she is one of the few anti-vax immunologists I've heard of.

Sure.

The "too much in one go" argument holds little or no merit. Newborns are exposed to more live pathogens shortly after birth than can be found (live or dead) in the entire vaccine schedule through their teen years.

I was thinking more of things like the MMR vaccine, whereby you get all 3 in one go, rather than spaced out over a month or three.

Meanwhile, some of the same proponents of a "revised" vaccine schedule -- as well as devout non-vaxxers -- purport the supremacy of "natural immunity": contracting chicken pox is somehow healthier than getting a shot.

It's certainly cheaper. People do try to get their kids infected with chicken pox so that they develop an immunity to it early, after all - but then chicken pox is a pretty mild disease in childhood.

So having a full-blown varicella infection is less taxing on children than receiving an injection of weakened virus? A preventive modality which typically confers immunity for 10 to 20 years while resulting in little or no symptoms is less "taxing" on the immune system than a fully symptomatic infection?

Speaking as a layman, there may also be other benefits - suddenly having a zillion viruses dumped into the bloodstream via hypodermic syringe is obviously different from having a few thousand infiltrate it via a grazed knee or what-have-you, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that this causes a different (eg, bigger) immune response - and in turn, it's not unreasonable to suppose that this can have consequences down the road. God knows it's not like the human body is built like a well oiled machine - there are so many weird connections, feedback loops, and so on.

[Chrysia]

I was thinking more of things like the MMR vaccine, whereby you get all 3 in one go, rather than spaced out over a month or three.

The MMR Vaccine is one of the safest ones out there. The viruses are severely attenuated.

[Lenonis]

There are a lot of sheeps in here, go ahead and take you r mercury filled vaccines and die from dementia.

the irony of someone who believes in a debunked conspiracy theory calling others sheep is just too much.

Also - hello low post count account. Sure you are totes serious.

[Azadina]

Speaking as a layman, there may also be other benefits - suddenly having a zillion viruses dumped into the bloodstream via hypodermic syringe is obviously different from having a few thousand infiltrate it via a grazed knee or what-have-you, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that this causes a different (eg, bigger) immune response - and in turn, it's not unreasonable to suppose that this can have consequences down the road. God knows it's not like the human body is built like a well oiled machine - there are so many weird connections, feedback loops, and so on.

Put it in real life terms: would you rather have 5 armed jihadis about to behead you, or would you have 200 unarmed ones, who have surrendered, are bound up, laying on the ground?

Which do you think is worse for you? The small number of fully functional ones, or the bigger number of not so much functional ones?

[Shadowferal]

I find it funny that many of the same people who rail against corporate America and say they don't trust corporations have, apparently, no trouble trusting Big Pharma when it comes to vaccines.

Big Pharms push "science"...but some people ignore the fact that it's all for the sake of the bottom line.
If I recall the National Infantile Paralysis Foundation had to either expand or file for bankruptcy after it had developed the polio vaccine and literally gave it away for free. This was a huge lesson for Pharmaceuticals everywhere. Which is likely the reason why they are desperate to keep control over the political maneuvering for research.

[Verzen]

Lol Tetyana claims vaccinated individuals have as much spreading power of disease as unvaccinated people??? There's several problems with that. Vaccinated individuals have far less severe symptoms. Symptoms help spread disease. The symptoms go away much faster in vaccinated individuals are vaccinated individuals don't show them at all. The longevity of the virus and susceptibility of the population go down. What happens what that happens? Ro decreases. That means less people get the disease.

She's an idiot.

[monasou1]

Some people can have all the evidence in the world placed at their feet and believe it's all a lie because "facebook and youtube said so." In fact, providing evidence only makes skeptics and conspiracy theorists even more sure that they are correct because in their minds the only reason the evidence exists is to mislead them. Not to mention confirmation bias where you actively seek out like minded opinions while discarding anything that challenges your idea's.

example: The world is flat!
But we know its round. here's thousands of years of proof.
You've clearly fallen for their lies, don't you know its all fake? These youtube video's prove it!

[Deleted]

So it was completely wiped out, then why it is bouncing back? Seems like contradiction.

Things that require more than two seconds of thought can often seem to be contradicting.

Have you considered obtaining an internet and searching for a answer?

[Verzen]

Those foreign genes aren't being directly injected into your bloodstream, bypassing nearly every natural filter our body possesses. And the genes are being introduced AFTER being intentionally, and drastically modified. simple blood transfusions can cause harm and death because of mis-matching with DNA strains, and blood is 2nd only to water in being the most universal element to pass through, be produced by, or generally interact with, our organs.

By filters, I mean such examples as: Skin, the acid of saliva, stomach acid, filtering tissue of the lungs, sinus pouches, lymph nodes.. etc. the only real filter that direct injection must pass through is the liver..

This is not even wrong. It's absolute crazy talk. People don't die because the DNA mismatches. People die because the antigens on the blood cells are attacked by the bodies immune system. That's what A blood type or B blood type is. They are antigens on blood cells. That's why O is the universal donor and AB is the universal receiver. There is no way the body can identify foreign DNA because DNA is DNA just with a different combination. Nothing is reading that sequence in an attempt to destroy it.

[Deleted]

There are a lot of sheeps in here, go ahead and take you r mercury filled vaccines and die from dementia.

Sounds like you're pretty much there.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not even wrong. It's absolute crazy talk. People don't die because the DNA mismatches. People die because the antigens on the blood cells are attacked by the bodies immune system. That's what A blood type or B blood type is. They are antigens on blood cells. That's why O is the universal donor and AB is the universal receiver. There is no way the body can identify foreign DNA because DNA is DNA just with a different combination. Nothing is reading that sequence in an attempt to destroy it.

My reply to this dangerously disturbed individual would have been "don't you piss more than you drink?" purely for his/her reaction to having their mind blown.

[Rotted]

Damn maybe you really need a bigger wall then.

- - - Updated - - -



Not my goal here, but I cannot say it didn't just gave me a bit of satisfaction

It gave you a bit of satisfaction being completely wrong and showing you have 0 clue what you're talking about? GG

[Toxsins]

THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINES - MY TAKE

I studied biochemistry at university, but I am not a medical doctor. This is my unprofessional opinion.

Vaccines have unquestionably saved many lives over the years and helped eradicate a lot of diseases, at least from the developed world. If you understand the science behind how vaccines work and how they are manufactured, then this isn't even a question in your mind.

Some of the concerns around vaccines are warranted, and others less so. Remember, we are dealing with biology here, and biology is indeed very complicated and there can be un-intuitive side effects that were literally impossible to predict from any medical treatment you receive, whether that's a vaccine, a drug, or surgery.

Valid concerns:

1) Vaccines can induce auto-immune reactions such as Guillain–Barré syndrome, that are still to this day somewhat of a mystery to medical science in terms of what causes it and what we can do to prevent it or treat it. These auto-immune reactions can be severe and debilitating, and in some cases even life-threatening. While the possibility exists for any vaccine causing Guillain–Barré syndrome, influenza vaccine appears to have some higher risk factors associated with it in particular.

2) Vaccines can be contaminated with other pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa) that were either introduced as part of the manufacturing process (contaminated / faulty equipment) or were present in the initial source material (the tissue the vaccine components are isolated from). Infamously, this problem occurred with the introduction of SV-40 (Simian Virus 40) into the Polio vaccine, which subsequently infected many people across the world who received the vaccine. Other biological products in recent years have been infected with fungi from poorly maintained lab equipment.

3) Vaccines in some cases have adjuvants used to increase the immune response, such as squalene, that may contribute to auto-immune reactions occurring. Adjuvants are typically not required to produce a vaccine, rather they are typically a cost saving measure so that less active ingredients are required to produce the same level of antibody response in the body. Personally, I tend not to like the idea of using adjuvants because of possible risks inherent in inducing auto-immune reactions and other allergic reactions, and I think their use should be restricted to only cases where their presence is absolutely necessary.

4) Vaccines in some cases have chemicals like aluminum or mercury (thiomersal) that are known to be neurotoxins and generally just a bad idea to have in your body. The amount of these chemicals present in the vaccines is usually considered to be too small to cause harm to your body, however my opinion is that we shouldn't risk it if we don't have to (and increasingly we don't risk it - the amounts of these chemicals have been reduced or eliminated in most developed countries).

5) Not all vaccines are 100% effective, and immunity doesn't always last. This can make balancing the decision between vaccinating or not vaccinating more difficult. There is still value in a vaccine that is only 50% effective if you are visiting or live in a area where a pathogen is endemic, however it may not be a good expenditure of resources and risk to bother with a low probability of success when the pathogen is not typically a threat where you live.

6) Cost. Quite simply, vaccines cost money, in some cases a lot of money. This is less of a concern for developed countries, though for people paying out of pocket without insurance or who have lousy insurance it can be. Cost is definitely a challenge for developing countries who struggle to afford all the vaccines they need. As a consequence, these countries have to be more selective about what vaccines they purchase and prioritize the most essential.

There is also the matter of vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. not being held directly responsible for injuries or deaths that may occur as a result of vaccination. The argument in favor of this legal standard is that manufacturers need to be protected from severe financial consequences (lawsuits) or even bankruptcy, because without this guarantee they will not bother researching and producing the vaccines that we need. On the other hand, what other industry gets to enjoy this sort of protection? Car manufacturers certainly don't, and yet they manage to stay in business. This is an issue that definitely deserves further debate in my mind.

Less valid concerns, potentially:

1) The autism debacle. The simple fact of the matter is, we don't yet understand what causes autism. Until we do, people will be prone to speculate, rightly or wrongly. Many parents notice their children take a turn for the worse after receiving vaccines, however correlation does not imply causation. It could be that the child was unfortunately fated to get autism regardless of whether they were vaccinated. Biological systems are enormously complicated, though, and it is possible that there are multiple contributing causes of autism or multiple factors that must be present in order for the condition to occur. Vaccination could be one of these factors that pre-disposes children to getting autism, or possibly the other ingredients in vaccines or the methods and timing of vaccine delivery.

Personally, I just don't think we know enough to decide one way or the other yet. I can see convincing evidence on both sides of the argument. At the end of the day, I tend to side with vaccinating for the most serious of illnesses early on (Tetanus, Pertussis, and other life threatening diseases), while holding off on the less essential vaccines at least until the child is older and is further along in their brain and immune development. I see almost no point - even in adults - in risking vaccination for something like influenza, for example. Influenza vaccine is notoriously unreliable and ineffective while seeming to have the highest risk of producing Guillain–Barré syndrome.

2) Religious concerns. This is my opinion, but I think it's absolutely silly for people to refuse vaccination for religious concerns. There is nothing strange or different about vaccination immunity as compared to natural exposure immunity. Your body is simply exposed to an antigen (components of the pathogen) and it develops anti-bodies to attack that antigen. This process is identical whether it occurs due to natural exposure or from an injection.

Summary

At the end of the day, I think it should be up to each individual or their parents if they are minor to decide whether to vaccinate. I personally believe that for me, the risk is worth it, as I have never had a seriously negative reaction to any previous vaccine or their ingredients.

I just started my series of Rabies vaccinations recently because I live and work around a lot of wildlife, and Rabies is 100% fatal if you have no previous immunity to it. The vaccines are 100% effective when administered correctly (both Rabavert and Imovax Rabies), and based on my personal research into the subject I consider the vaccines themselves to be extremely well made and to contain few impurities.

I contrast that with influenza vaccine, which again is unreliable and has a relatively high chance of side effects. It's understandably difficult to develop a universal flu vaccine, but I don't see any point in playing guinea pig to battle a disease that is hardly any trouble at all for me, personally.

If you think the risk is worth it for any particular vaccine, then go ahead. It is and should be your right to make that decision for yourself and your children. Forcing people at gunpoint to accept vaccination is tyranny, period, even if it's "for a good cause". If we don't own and control our bodies in this world, then what do we own and control? Nothing. Herd immunity (when most people are immune to a pathogen, and therefor limit its spread) is a valuable concept, but it is not and should not be an excuse for violating people's right to self-determination.

[Carnagefiend]

THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINES - MY TAKE
Forcing people at gunpoint to accept vaccination is tyranny, period, even if it's "for a good cause". If we don't own and control our bodies in this world, then what do we own and control? Nothing. Herd immunity (when most people are immune to a pathogen, and therefor limit its spread) is a valuable concept, but it is not and should not be an excuse for violating people's right to self-determination.

That would only be true if people lived in a vacuum. They don't.

Diseases and pathogens spread. Your self determination can result in the harm, or death, of the unvaccinated, such as infants.

Herd immunity isn't a concept, it's practically a mathematical equation that you can run simulations on. The only people that shouldn't be vaccinated are people that have auto-immunity responses to the vaccines. Considering these people are vastly in the minority, it won't be harmful.

Your self determination stops the moment it causes harm to others. If you want to die of a disease, that's fine, but unless you're going to seal yourself up in a box your "self determination" is going to linger everywhere you go.

[Toxsins]

Your self determination stops the moment it causes harm to others. If you want to die of a disease, that's fine, but unless you're going to seal yourself up in a box your "self determination" is going to linger everywhere you go.

That's simply your opinion, and I disagree. I don't consider it to be my responsibility to look after your health. If you can't be vaccinated yourself because you have a medical condition, then that is your problem, not mine. Life is not fair, at any attempt to make it fair when it violates individual rights is unacceptable.

Also, have you done any research on particular vaccines? For example, the DTaP vaccine gives a person immunity to the Pertussis toxoid, but it does not give them immunity to the bacterium itself. Therefore, you can be "vaccinated against Pertussis" while still being able to spread the pathogen itself. There is no herd immunity conferred from this vaccine. Many vaccines are like this, where you can still be a carrier for the pathogen while being immune yourself, so I'm curious as to whether you would consider it valid to make those vaccines compulsory.

[Tic Tacs]

Well in India and pretty sure in China too most of the children are not vaccinated, do you see these countries drop in population?

[zorkuus]

Well in India and pretty sure in China too most of the children are not vaccinated, do you see these countries drop in population?

They also have a lot of diseases going round. Funny how that works huh?

[Masark]

The argument in favor of this legal standard is that manufacturers need to be protected from severe financial consequences (lawsuits) or even bankruptcy, because without this guarantee they will not bother researching and producing the vaccines that we need.

That's not really an argument so much as established history. Exactly that happened in the early 80s. There was a massive thing about the DPT vaccine supposedly causing brain damage (which was later totally discredited) and lots of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, which the manufacturers lost. Due to that, basically all of them stopped making that vaccine and supplies dried up.

All that was what lead to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the "vaccine court", shifting liability to the federal government.

- - - Updated - - -

Well in India and pretty sure in China too most of the children are not vaccinated, do you see these countries drop in population?

Might want to get some facts. India has been pushing vaccination hard and recently eliminated polio from their country.