Not All Swine-Flu Vaccine Skeptics Are "Anti-Vaxxers"

"what possible danger do

By: Katie27again | Fri, 10/09/2009 - 08:56

"what possible danger do unvaccinated children pose to your vaccinated and hence PROTECTED children???? this argument always puzzles me, particularly when data shows outbreaks occur in fully vaccinated populations all the time..."

I believe you answered your own question. Just to clarify-again-vaccination campaigns work in populations. They aren't designed for individual protection, but collective protection (which then becomes, to as great a degree as possible, individual protection). A vaccination doesn't guarantee immunity, only a high probability of immunity. So, yes, your unvaccinated children potentially pose a threat to my vaccinated children. We all agree to vaccinate as a collective effort to protect as many people as possible. So, when vaccination rates begin to fall off, the collective immunity does the same.

I have just about given up on anyone taking the time to actually understand science. (And a sense of civic responsibility for that matter.)

Anecdotes are not data

By: falk | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 13:15

im1 is completely right. I'd also like to point out that saying 1 person died of the 1976 flu while 25 died of the vaccine is badly incomplete data.

Suppose that, without the vaccine, 1000 people would have died of the flu and zero would have died of the vaccine, would you still say the vaccine was not worth it?

Until you have complete numbers on what the fatality rate of the flu is, and what the fatality rate of the vaccine is, and the numbers of people who were and were not vaccinated, you don't have enough information to draw any conclusions.

ETA: I've heard people argue that all the work the computer industry did preparing for the Y2K problem was a waste of time, because in the end, there was no disaster after all. It's pretty obvious that they're missing the point.

vaccines

By: tankswife | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 09:53

Hello everyone,
I hate to make this into a vaccine/autism debate but I wanted to comment on a few things here:
First, I wanted to comment on the argument that autism does not occur in the Amish population. That is false; many disorders occur in the amish population including autism.
Second, there was a study in 2007 that was completed in Denmark. Denmark is a country that keeps data on their immunized and nonimmunized populations. The study revealed that autism occurred with the same frequency in children who were and were not vaccinated.
Lastly, a study in Japan in 2005 revealed that the incidence of autism grew from 97 cases per 10000 children to 161 per 10000 after the MMR vaccination rate went to near zero.

Autism is caused by many different things from genetic disorders (fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, rett syndrome, etc to hypoxic injuries at birth, to the unknown, not yet identified syndromes). But study after study, which involve hundreds of thousands of children have noted no correlation between vaccines and autism.

Also on the comment on "herd immunity" where it is presumed that unimmunized kids will have immunity from measles, etc when there are immunized kids around. That is a great theory and it can work but what about the unimmunized kid who is around smaller children, infants who are too young to immunized or around immunocompromised people? Why should others be put at risk?

Just my two (or three) cents.

Thimerosol

By: Kit-Kat | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 09:51

Although there are small amounts of thimerosal in flu vaccines, it is no longer used in the vaccines that children get (MMR, polio, etc.) and haven't been for at least a decade (Check the CDC for the exact dates). In any case, autism rates haven't changed, most likely because VACCINES DON'T CAUSE AUTISM. While some vaccines do have side effects (like most medications) the antivaxers generally seem to overstate the value of anecdote (the plural of anecdote is not data).

I have personally experienced the result of poor vaccination rates. When I was younger, there was a huge outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) in northern Idaho and eastern Washington, resulting from poor vaccination rates in Idaho. My brother, parents, and myself (along with plenty of other people in the area) all got the disease, which is very serious and can kill babies. We all had to take some pretty strong and unpleasant antibiotics, steroids, and opiates to combat the symptoms and the disease.

Vaccines really work by creating herd immunity--enough people are immune that the disease cannot get established. If there are enough unvaccinated people, then the disease can get established, and spread to the especially vulnerable (babies, elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and pregnant women), but also to the vaccinated, because the vaccine does not provide 100 percent effectiveness over the life of a person. People who don't vaccinate their kids don't just put their kids at risk--they put everyone else at risk, too. If you're going to make that kind of decision, you'd better have a better authority than Jenny McCarthy and bad science.

mercury, etc

By: tokidoki | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 08:58

As far as the swine flu vax goes, most DO have thimerosol in them, there is a mercury-free version, but you have to ask for it. They will tell you that there is no more mercury in this vaccine than eating a tuna sandwich, which while true, doesn't take into account all of the other mercury-laden vaccines that are thrust upon our children. While there are many vaccines available that are mercury free, not all doctors/pharmacies keep these in stock, and unless you ask, you will not know if they are mercury-free or not. Autism aside (and why do people assume this is the only risk associated with vaccines?), There are alot of other questionable ingredients in vaccines.

In the case of swine flu, the cases I've heard reported locally have been extremely mild, and what deaths have occured have been not due so much to H1N1 itself, but complications of pneumonia. For me, I would rather take my chances with a relatively mild virus than the flu shot or spray.

As for the regular flu, I can't honestly say I have ever come down with it, and the family members I have that have gotten the flu shot became very ill, far more ill than they would have had they just had the flu. For each person, and each vaccine, you need to weigh the benefits and risks - for me and mine - we will not be getting either flu vaccine.

@papabryant

By: im1 | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 08:42

Get the facts thimerosol is out of most vaccines now and there is no association between thimerosol and autism or any other disease. Thimerosol exposure has been greatly decreased but lo and behold, autism rates (and the rate of crazy anti-vaxers) haven't dropped. That's because thimerosol doesn't cause autism, end of story.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/thimerosal.htm
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafe...

Omnibaby, you are right.

By: papabryant | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 08:19

That argument is bogus, and is a lame attempt to poison the well against 'anti-vaxers'.

I qualify as an "anti-vaxer" in Ms Larimore's book - I REFUSE to allow my children to be vaccinated any further after my son's behavior turned violent following his last MMR shot.

The problem isn't vaccinations themselves. Modern vaccines use thimerisol as a preservative - which is derived from mercury, a known cause of brain chemistry problems. Both my youngest daughter and my son have Asperger's Syndrome, and I am convinced it comes from the increased number of shots children receive as part of the current vaccination program.

When I was a child in the late 60's and early 70's, there were only six shots required for children under two years old. Today there are twenty-six required in the state of Florida. Most of them use thimerisol as a preservative. And autism rates have skyrocketted since the number of required shots have increased.

Individually, the amount of thimerisol might not be much per shot, but thimerisol/mercury doesn't leave the system without chellation therapy - a fact we recognize in our tuna fish but not our vaccines. Over time mercury builds up in the body and affects the brain's chemistry. This is what the case of Jett Travolta was all about - unqualified persons engaging in chellation therapy to remove the mercury from Jett's system. Most likely because he had become violent after his last vaccine.

Medical science IS correct when they say they cannot ethically conduct clinical experiments to test whether vaccines cause autism - withholding vaccines from children, i.e. creating a control group, put them at risk for polio, measles, etc. But what they DON'T tell you is there is a naturally occuring control group already; the Pennsylvania and Ohio Amish community. They DON'T vaccinate their children, and they DON'T have autism in their community.

How do I "recommend"?

By: nagatuki | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 07:42

Im1, I agree completely, and I think this whole notion of not vaccinating in general has gained traction because one celebrity - Jenny McCarthy - declared it caused her son's autism, and has since written a book describing how she _cured_ his autism, and so on.

This nonsense gets perpetuated through the media because they have no idiot filter, and she gets on Oprah (whom I respect but I'm disappointed in for this one), and gets her own show, and the mindless masses who can't think scientifically (remember people who believed deodorant caused cancer because it "blocked toxins" from leaving the body?) cling to anything that can explain their kid's problem.

And yes, this is the provence of well-to-do white people (speaking as someone who's white and works in Montgomery County) who, frankly, have too much time on their hands - it's like they've moved beyond real problems and are on to made-up ones.

And why doesn't it get mentioned enough that these anti-vax idiots were _themselves_ vaccinated?! And that the reason they're here and didn't die as a kid is because of said vaccinations?!

Some thoughts to help you decide

By: Vville222 | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 07:41

I am not in the medical profession, but I have been following the vaccine debates quite closely, and I think you might be confused on a couple of points.

1. "The H1N1 vaccine is new..." Yes, the vaccine is new, but that is also true of every flu vaccine for every year. The flu virus is slightly different from year to year, which is why a new vaccine is necessary every year. It is true that H1N1 is more different (great grammar!), but the process for making flu vaccine has gotten pretty refined over the dozens of years that we have been making them. There is no reason to think that the H1N1 vaccine carries any greater risk than the seasonal flu vaccine.

2. 25 deaths from Guillain-Barre Syndrome in 1976 were caused by the vaccine. This one may be true, but if that is the source of your worry, refer to point #1. 30+ years of developing flu shots have helped scientist get really good at making them.

However, there may be other explanations for the outbreak of GBS. The >50 "antecedent events" range from viral infection to being struck by lightning. In either case, it is worth noting that there have been no significant differences in rates of GBS between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations since 1976.

I personally believe it is a public good for as many people as possible to get vaccinated, so as to slow the spread of a disease that kills 30,000 Americans a year. Vaccination, like any medical intervention, is not risk free. But I feel the benefits hugely outweigh the risks.

TB vs vaccination

By: im1 | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 00:52

I find the public health debate surrounding TB to present a stark and illuminating contrast to the vaccination debate. For one, there is no public health debate surrounding TB. If you have TB and you refuse antibiotic treatment in this country, you are forcibly detained until public health authorities are sure of your compliance (think this doesn't happen, it does, the ER my husband works in forcibly detained someone with TB this month). Of course, most people with TB are poor and/or from other countries, a stark contrast to the rich, white anti-vaxers.

Also in a country where we are not vaccinated with the moderately protective TB vaccine, we are all in grave danger from one infectious TB patient on the loose. Some rich anti-vaxer doesn't vaccinate their kids, they mostly endanger a smaller proportion of the population (those who are poor responders to vaccines, due to a weakened immune system). Who falls into the weak immune system category? chemo patients, HIV patients, the elderly, very small children whose immune systems have not developed, oh yeah, and pregnant women. When you don't vaccinate, you don't just endanger your child, you endanger these people too. I am shocked that we are such a selfish society we barely register the grave danger anti-vaxers pose to others, we just endlessly ruminate over the vanishingly small, infinitesimal, and often entirely false dangers posed to ourselves/our children by vaccination. I pray this lapse of judgment is because the general public doesn't understand herd immunity and how it protects the weakest amongst us.