Hacker News Reader

Comment by sitharus | Hacker News Reader

I've had the fun experience of debating with anti-vaccine people. Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a matter of faith, the vaccines cause autism line keeps coming up.

Unfortunately for us a condition that we don't really understand is far more prevalent than the side-effects of preventable diseases. I've never met anyone who's experienced post-polio syndrome or given birth to a child with congenital rubella. Alas I had measles myself, but I was too young to have been vaccinated.

This coupled with our odd perception of risk leads to people abandoning something that demonstrably saves lives because of the minor risk of side-effects. Having done some minor work with autistic children it's certainly not as bad or as certain as the documented outcomes of disease.

I don't think much will change people's minds until the diseases return, but I will be keeping up on the pro-vaccination side.

View on HN

Why would God protect from the measles but not the autism? (And I say this as a Christian who believes in healing) Yet while 'vaccine denialism' is often associated with the Religious Right, it's certainly not a prerequisite, because you can certainly find the same sentiments among the all-natural anti-GMO fringe Left, and before we had stories about Texas mega churches we had stories about affluent Californians[1]

[1]http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/26/vaccine-exempti...

Why would God protect from the measles but not the autism?

That's a wonderful line.

Well, when your mind is made up you can explain anything - perhaps the autism is a punishment for not trusting in the original protection, etc, etc

Indeed. If you want talk to them with their terms, you might have better luck with "God helps those who help themselves", though I doubt that will work in practice either.

Sure, but it's not like they're consistently anti-medicine, happily 'helping themselves' to cancer treatments and the rest (well, except for the oddly named Christian Science sect, but not the broader Bachmann-style evangelicals that are found overlapping with the anti-vaccine movement these days). It's almost like existing biases helped them succumb to the original fraud and helped them get stuck in it, so now they just truly believe that most medicine helps but vaccines cause autism. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be spreading across evangelicals as a whole.

And I say this as a Christian who believes in healing

Forgive me if I come across as rude. I'd love to hear your answer to, "Why won't God heal amputees?"

I'm not trying to score points or anything. I'm genuinely curious about your answer. Despite our different beliefs, I'm glad we share so much common ground on the issue of vaccination.

That's a legitimate question, and I don't pretend to have an answer. I believe God has healed in numerous cases that defy explanation by placebo, misdiagnosis, or other means, but that tells me little about why he has not done so in others. I could come up with theological theories, but none, at least presently, that I would expect others to find satisfactory. It is also, I admit, not a question I have specifically spent much time considering or investigating, - - though I acknowledge its difficult implication.

Fair enough. I used amputees in my example because they were the most obvious, but there are plenty of afflictions that prayer never cures: Down syndrome, spina bifida, cleft palate, Tay-Sachs, dwarfism, etc.

I hope some day that you have a satisfying answer to this question.

The paper saying that the MMR vaccine causes autism (which is where the whole concept came from) was fraudulent, so it's not just "well, a side effect is better than the disease", it's total misguidance.

Also, here's an amusing Penn & Teller clip that shares your view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

Depending on the decease this side-effect IS the better alternative. It's better to have 1 autism then 100 dead people. Unless you can know in advance who will develop side-effect, they should take their changes with dead.

Read up on the fraudulent research of ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

There is no as in zero, none, zilch, nada evidence that vaccines is in any way related to autism.

The reason why people still believe in a connection (apart from Wakefield's fraud) is that often when an infant gets the first shot this is about at the time when the first autism symptoms show.

I'm not claiming that there are never bad side effects of vaccines (very rare) but autism is most certainly not one of them.

If nothing else, Wakefield has been a great example of the cost of scientific fraud. As a science major, I've had Wakefield drilled into me; befrauding a paper for money/fame/whatever leads to public opinion preventing herd immunity many years down the line, and indirectly, loss of lives. It's unbelievable.

The folks who skip out on vaccination are (consciously or not) doing one or both of the following:

1) Counting on the herd immunity provided by everyone else to keep them safe

2) Pretending that the diseases which are being vaccinated against "really weren't all that bad" or maybe "didn't happen often"

Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Not all vaccines are created equal--including some that are intended to solve for the same thing. And all too many who blab their opinion on pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do so with a minimum of research and evidence to support their opinion.

Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks.

As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.

No, we are not overlooking that. Some of us have looked into the evidence and figured out that people who convince themselves that they are "intelligently selecting vaccinations" are in fact making poor choices.

What do you say to someone making poor choices when you know their choices are poor, and they are so convinced they are right that they won't listen?

Can you show me a "almost no benefit" vaccine that has "significant risks" that is currently in use?

> Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding.

You say that as you pound your chest about "informed opinion" without providing any information... so it's just (uninformed) opinion (right now).

> Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks.

Can you provide some examples (three or four would be ok, that should count as "some") of these vaccines, backing your results with real, reputable research?

Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research

I disagree; the people I've encountered who claim to be making this kind of selection are not doing it based on current research. They're doing it based on (often slightly hysterical) websites, niche talk shows, celebrity opinion and op-ed pieces designed to sell newspapers. Doing it based on current research would require a great deal more effort, knowledge and time.

Pretty much all the data points I've ever seen used by such people have been false, and little more than excuses for their irrational choices.

>current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test.

Citation needed, and also important to share if you really believe that unicorns like this exist.

>As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.

No, it's a fallacy to expect that the right answer must always be in the middle of two sides of an argument. The Law of Averages isn't really a law, it's a mistake.

Personally, I've seen a lot more vaccination refusal among left-wing anti-corporate types than among the devoutly religious. That may be a function of my usual peer group, but to solve this problem it's going to be important to recognize how widespread it can be.

The last big outbreak of polio in the US was among the Amish, in the 1970s.

Historically, members of Christian Science have been against vaccinations (and other forms of medical treatment) since the Compulsory Vaccination Act in England in 1855. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Avoidance_of_... .

In the end, though, the fact is that if you require informed consent, some people won't.

The question really is whether we go around battering people for their own good by poking them with needles or whether we respect the decisions regarding medical consent, whether those are right or wrong.

> Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a matter of faith

"God hasn't protected people of your faith historically, why do you think he's going to start now?"

it sure didn't protect the original Apostles (if Foxe's Book of Martyrs is to be believed).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com