Woo Shot(s)

[Reaper]

I thought about putting this in biomedical ethics, but I'd figured that it would be better over here. It's about vaccinations and the people who are against them. Just found it this morning while browsing, let me know what you think:

 

 

Please read this all the way through. I’ve got my wind up here' date=' and want you all to listen.

 

 

Anyone who reads this blog knows my feeling that critical thinking is one of the most important aspects of humanity that we possess. Our ability to discern truth from fallacy is more than important. It’s literally critical.

I also understand that my fighting antiscience in the rather narrow field of astronomy isn’t apt to save lives. But I do know with 100% certainty that bad thinking elsewhere can certainly take them. And in too many cases, it’s our innocents who pay the price of our simple inability to think.

 

 

Bad thinking kills when it comes to health. The reasons are legion, but one stands out in particular: the anti-vaccination crowd.

 

 

You may not be aware that there is an organized effort to undermine the influenza vaccination program (also for many other diseases as well). People place all sorts of blame on it, including (and probably most vociferously) how they think the MMR shot causes autism. There is no evidence to support this claim other than anecdotes and our very strong urge to link something that happens to something that came before ([i']post hoc ergo propter hoc[/i] is the Latin for this logical fallacy). Just because a child gets a shot and then develops autism does not mean that the autism was caused by the shot.

 

 

Many of these folks claim that the national vaccination program is a conspiracy to somehow keep the population under control. They use the same faulty evidence, bad thinking, and misleading methods that the Moon Hoax purveyors, the Mars Facers, the UFO proponents, and cosmic doomcriers use. They may very well be honest people who are just seriously misguided, but when it comes to vaccination we all suffer under their skewed view: if enough people don’t get vaccinated, a disease can still run rampant. You need a minimum number of vaccinated people so that herd immunity can take place, where enough people can slow or even stop the spread of the disease.

 

 

If these people prevail, we are all at risk. If you’re under the age of, say, 40 do you personally remember anyone getting smallpox, or polio?

 

 

No? Guess why.

 

 

 

 

That’ll all end if the antivax people have their way. They must be stopped, and being vocal about critical thinking is the only way to do it. The blog ERV has been fighting this fight — this incredibly important fight — for a while now, and has some actual good news on that front: celebrities are coming out and speaking their minds about the antivax crowd. Like it or not, famous faces get attention, and in this case it’s Jennifer Garner and Dean Cain. Both have been vocal about getting flu shots this season, and both seem to be saying it for the right reasons, too. You can tell by their words: it’s not lip service. They mean it.

 

 

And when it comes to the important stuff, the really important stuff, I’ll take all the help I can get to make sure the word gets out.

 

 

As for me: I haven’t had my flu shot this season. I’m going to take care of that as soon as I can.

 

 

Who’s with me?

 

EDIT: forgot the link: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/01/04/woo-shot/

[Royston]

let me know what you think:

 

Umm, obviously I (and probably everyone else on here) will agree that making claims that a vaccination has adverse effects, without a shred of evidence is ludicrous. I'm a bit confused about what you want to discuss here though.

 

Incidentally, I'm just recovering from Flu B, so was considering getting the vaccination. In the UK, Flu outbreaks have hit an all time low, in part due to vaccinations (no surprise there.)

[insane_alien]

i agree that vaccinations are important. but i've never had a flu shot. i'm not in any of the groups at risk and theres usually a hortage of vaccines and well, i've never actually caught the flu. i've been around people with the flu for extended periods of time but never picked it up so i figure my immune system is good enough to handle it. let someone who needs it get the shot. obviously, if i fall into one of the risk groups which will probably happen eventually i will get the shots.

 

and i had the MMR jab with the mercury in it, so did everybody at my school both primary and highschool. there was nobody who had autism. 1600 different people there.

 

if there is a link its a tenuous one at best. a little bit of mercury once won't do much. its a cumulative poison need a decent amount over a period of time to make it affect you.

[iNow]

I'm a diabetic, so I get a flu shot every year.

 

I found out just how well it works over this holiday when my girlfriend and all of her family were SICK AS DOGS and I had little more than a sniffle. They were miserable, and I was carrying on just fine... all because I got my flu shot. Choice is yours, really.

[swansont]

and i had the MMR jab with the mercury in it, so did everybody at my school both primary and highschool. there was nobody who had autism. 1600 different people there.

 

if there is a link its a tenuous one at best. a little bit of mercury once won't do much. its a cumulative poison need a decent amount over a period of time to make it affect you.

 

Especially since removing mercury (thimerosal) didn't reduce the number of new autism diagnoses in the US.

[Realitycheck]

I have a feeling that the argument centers around how when you get a vaccine shot, they put the bacteria/virus in you to prime your immune system for it. Right? This probably makes a number of people cautious about letting it into their body, out of fear of catching it more easily.

[ecoli]

if there is a link its a tenuous one at best. a little bit of mercury once won't do much. its a cumulative poison need a decent amount over a period of time to make it affect you.

 

Well that depends.

 

A friend of friend has a child who's body cannot remove mercury from his body... he's got severe autism. (not saying this was caused by a vaccine shot). If your body can't remove mercury, than it can build up in the nervous system, so even a little bit can be harmful.

[DrDNA]

Well that depends.

 

A friend of friend has a child who's body cannot remove mercury from his body... he's got severe autism. (not saying this was caused by a vaccine shot). If your body can't remove mercury, than it can build up in the nervous system, so even a little bit can be harmful.

 

Interesting. Do you know how the inability to remove mercury was diagnosed and what causes it?

I've never heard of this type of thing before. I assume that it also includes problems with other heavy metals?

Do you know if people that have this undergo "chelation therapy"...which I always thought was quackery...but of course could be wrong...?

Any chance you know of a link or reference maybe?

Thanks!

[insane_alien]

well, my body sucks at dumping excess iron. but i donate blood so it shouldn't get out of hand. never heard of chelation.

[DrDNA]

I have a feeling that the argument centers around how when you get a vaccine shot, they put the bacteria/virus in you to prime your immune system for it. Right? This probably makes a number of people cautious about letting it into their body, out of fear of catching it more easily.

 

There are a number of reasons. A vaccine just needs to be an antigen to boost or prime your immune system so that when the real thing comes along, it can recognize it and is already prepared go to work and eleminate it quickly. This is because the immune system is somewhat latent in its ability to attack new things that it has not seen before. Vaccines are generally attenuated (alive similar strains but not the kind that is severly pathogenic), dead ("killed") pathogens, particles from the pathogen that cannot reproduce, or some sort of toxic product from the pathogens.

 

One famous problem that occured early on with the Salk vaccine for polio was that in 1955, 44 people contracted polio after being vaccinated with "Killed" polio viruses. There was a problem in the process that "killed" the live viruses used for innoculation.

 

And then there is the issue that a compound that metabolizes to ethylmercury has traditionally been used in vaccines as a perservative.

 

Another concern is that live-attenuated viruses can revert to the pathogenic form.

 

And then there is the concern that the cells used to make the vaccine can become infected with another virus and the vaccination with simply infect people with these.

 

There are many vaccine controversies and even conspiracy theories. Someone is always trying to link vaccines with one disease or another, one big one is autism.

 

well, my body sucks at dumping excess iron. but i donate blood so it shouldn't get out of hand. never heard of chelation.

 

Chelation therapy is where they give you a chlelating agent like EDTA to bind up and flush out heavy metals. It is a viable therapy for acute heavy metal poisoning, but its widespread use for other conditions is disputed.

[ecoli]

Interesting. Do you know how the inability to remove mercury was diagnosed and what causes it?

I've never heard of this type of thing before. I assume that it also includes problems with other heavy metals?

Do you know if people that have this undergo "chelation therapy"...which I always thought was quackery...but of course could be wrong...?

Any chance you know of a link or reference maybe?

Thanks!

 

I don't know *too* much about it. I do know he was taking clay baths, in the hopes that was draw out the mercury. Now, he's needs to sit in some sort of oxygen chamber, not entirely sure why. The mother didn't seem to know, but I'm pretty sure she was going to a legitimate hospital/doctor.

[iNow]

The fears and conspiracies around things like the flu shot and the various other vaccines strike me as ignorant. I don't know what motivates it, but it seems very misguided and appears to feed off of some strange belief set and lack of rationality.

 

You challenge your bodies immune system with a weaker foe so it learns how to defend against the stronger attack. The flu evolves, so by taking a flu shot each year your body has learned how to defend against many different strains.

 

 

Is it possible that some X-files government type branch is loading them with nanabugs tied to GPS trackers and microphones? Yeah... sure... but it's also not of high likelihood.

[swansont]

The fears and conspiracies around things like the flu shot and the various other vaccines strike me as ignorant. I don't know what motivates it, but it seems very misguided and appears to feed off of some strange belief set and lack of rationality.

 

The risk/reward assessment has been skewed. As the BA pointed out, parents of toddlers these days don't remember people dying from polio and smallpox. The short institutional memory means they underestimate the reward and overestimate the risk. And that's even before you get the woo added in.

[JohnB]

One must be very careful about grouping those who avoid vaccinations with some sort of loony conspiracy theorists. Those that I know are more worried about the fillers used in the vaccine than the vaccine itself.

 

Mercury in MMR has been mentioned. How is a parent who avoids injecting their child with a heavy metal poison (regardless of how small the amount) somehow ignorant? As has been pointed out the mercury has been removed from the vaccine (without a reduction in efficiency) so one has to ask "Why was the poison put in in the first place?" In Oz we were using formaldehyde as part of the filler. Read this MSDS and tell me you really want to let someone inject your child with it. The National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) Safety Info Sheet No. 27 says;

The level of 0.5 ppm is the level at which humans are known to start experiencing discomfort.

These people also doubt, on quite logical grounds, some of the statistics concerning vaccinations and their side effects. Not speaking for any other nation but the rules in Australia are such that a possible side effect is only reported if in the opinion of the examining doctor it is connected with the vaccination. So the Australian stats are based not on science, but opinion.

 

BTW, the main concern down here is not autism but athsma. I don't know about the rest of the planet, but the rates down here have skyrocketted. Athsma is an immune system dysfunction, something has messed with the immune system. At it's most basic level, a system of innoculations is designed to mess with the immune system. Is it so illogical for a parent to avoid something that messes with the immune system in the hope that their child won't get a messed up immune system? We don't know what cases asthma and the parents are simply playing it safe.

 

Again, this is amoungst those I know. They really do agonise over these decisions and worry that their risk/benefit analysis is right. There is always a trade off of risk.

 

On a different track but in a similar vein, penile cancer is extremely rare in circumcised males so a parent faces a similar choice. If they do cut, it's often frowned upon as mutilation but if they don't then they are causing their child to have an increased cancer risk.

 

There are no easy answers.

 

For myself, I try to avoid shots. Partly because I rarely get sick (my wife calls me disgustingly healthy) but mostly because I hate needles. (No, I mean it, I really, really hate needles) However, if I'm going to work on a vintage car wreck with lots of rusty metal I make sure I get my Tetanus booster before I start. It's my chemical PPE.

[Royston]

Is it so illogical for a parent to avoid something that messes with the immune system in the hope that their child won't get a messed up immune system? We don't know what cases asthma and the parents are simply playing it safe.

 

It's natural for a parent to worry about their child, but it's certainly not logical for them to worry if that fear stems from their own assertions. Linking the use of vaccinations, to the effects of an over active (well, perfectly healthy) immune system (which people that suffer from allergic reactions have) is obviously jumping to conclusions. The only people that should have a voice in such matters are the experts, not worried Mums.

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting distinction, Snail, although I wonder if maybe you carry it just a hair too far. Noticing that the only people objecting are "worried mums" is a good clue, but rejecting it solely for that reason might be premature.

 

I think JohnB makes an important point, although I think perhaps he may go too far in suggesting that there's ALWAYS a trade-off of risk or that there are NO easy answers. That may be overstating the case. But what he's saying is not a rejection of science (note his last paragraph), it's casting a skeptical eye on the dictates of society, which I think is very important.

[swansont]

Mercury in MMR has been mentioned. How is a parent who avoids injecting their child with a heavy metal poison (regardless of how small the amount) somehow ignorant? As has been pointed out the mercury has been removed from the vaccine (without a reduction in efficiency) so one has to ask "Why was the poison put in in the first place?"

 

One possibility is that technology advances. If Thimerosal was the answer at one point, it may be that was the best solution at the time. It may be that a viable alternative didn't exist until later.

 

The ignorance of the parent is in assessing the risk/reward of the vaccine. They haven't properly accounted for what they do and don't know — all they hear is "mercury." Mercury compounds are not the same as elemental mercury, and do not have the same reactions. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction, not made based on knowledge, ergo it's made from ignorance.

 

Calling the mercury compound a "poison" is part of the problem. Chlorine's a poison, right? But table salt (NaCl) is not. Mistakes of this type, innocent or not, adds to the fear-mongering, and results in real people getting hurt.

[Royston]

That's an interesting distinction, Snail, although I wonder if maybe you carry it just a hair too far. Noticing that the only people objecting are "worried mums" is a good clue, but rejecting it solely for that reason might be premature.

 

I'm more concerned with the reasoning behind the worry, and JohnB provided another example of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', i.e a vaccination primes the immune system to cope with a virus, my child has developed asthma which is an allergy response, allergic responses are triggered by the immune system...therefore the vaccination caused my child's asthma.

 

Remember there are a wealth of magazines, and newspapers that feed on 'what the public want to hear', by preying on the 'worried Mums' fears, it's the perfect recipe for misinformation, and it's this type of feedback loop that is the perfect catalyst for situations such as the MMR scare. Albeit the source was from a shoddy medical journal, but it takes a small amount of doubt, to get the ball rolling. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame anybody for showing a level of concern, but when it comes to health, I feel there is simply no room for jumping to conclusions.

 

The Daily Mail (British tabloid) are a prime example of a paper that use this tactic on a regular basis, and were key players in the MMR scare...here's a link if you're interested.

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;331/7525/1148

[swansont]

A problem is that the media's desire to inform is confounded by their desire to have controversy and ensure that there are two sides to the story. When the quality of evidence from one of the two sides doesn't measure up, you have a problem; the story no longer has two sides, and stories depicting the situation that way are misleading.

 

Skepticism is all well and good, but the analysis has got to be based on facts, i.e. data. And the more data the better — the way you shoot down someone's hypothesis is with more and better data, but "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

[Pangloss]

I'm more concerned with the reasoning behind the worry, and JohnB provided another example of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', i.e a vaccination primes the immune system to cope with a virus, my child has developed asthma which is an allergy response, allergic responses are triggered by the immune system...therefore the vaccination caused my child's asthma.

 

Remember there are a wealth of magazines, and newspapers that feed on 'what the public want to hear', by preying on the 'worried Mums' fears, it's the perfect recipe for misinformation, and it's this type of feedback loop that is the perfect catalyst for situations such as the MMR scare. Albeit the source was from a shoddy medical journal, but it takes a small amount of doubt, to get the ball rolling. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame anybody for showing a level of concern, but when it comes to health, I feel there is simply no room for jumping to conclusions.

 

The Daily Mail (British tabloid) are a prime example of a paper that use this tactic on a regular basis, and were key players in the MMR scare...here's a link if you're interested.

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;331/7525/1148

 

Right, it's the jumping-to-conclusions part that's damaging. The funny thing about post hoc propter ergo hoc is that sometimes the thing that comes before turns out to be the actual cause. I am concerned sometimes that society is so busy telling soccer moms to shut up and do what they're told that we miss an obvious sign of trouble. We WANT moms to tell us what's happening when we do things to their kids -- they're actually more qualified than the children to report effects of medicine, for example.

 

So it's kind of a tricky thing because we want a well-informed parent but at the same time we don't want them leaping to conclusions AND they have a steady diet of Hollywood (and history) telling them to withhold their trust.

 

But I think you hit the nail on the head in talking about jumping to conclusions. That's where the line is, alright.

[JohnB]

Linking the use of vaccinations, to the effects of an over active (well, perfectly healthy) immune system (which people that suffer from allergic reactions have) is obviously jumping to conclusions.

How does having athsma equate to having a perfectly healthy immune system?

 

Their logic is this:

1. There is an increase in athsma.

2. Athsma is an immune system problem.

3. We don't know why people develop Asthma.

4. It is a reasonable idea that things that are designed to mess with the immune system actually do so.

5. Vaccinations are designed to mess with the immune system.

6. You have a greater likelihood of having a non problematic immune system if you avoid things that mess with it.

 

The reasoning is not post hoc propter ergo hoc at all, it is looking at ways to minimise future risk. While most people are not schooled in scientific method and are not generally aware that correlation does not imply causation they are aware that you can't have causation without correlation. It is exactly the same logic that says "If you don't want your child to be run over, don't let him play on the road." Minimise the risk, all the while accepting that there is a trade off in that the child may be less defended against some diseases.

The only people that should have a voice in such matters are the experts, not worried Mums.

Don't treat parents or patients as idiots. If any MD made such a comment as the above to anyone I know, it would be their last visit to him. Ex Cathedra does not impress these days. There are enough thalidomide babies still alive to take the "It's safe" with a large grain of salt.

The ignorance of the parent is in assessing the risk/reward of the vaccine. They haven't properly accounted for what they do and don't know — all they hear is "mercury." Mercury compounds are not the same as elemental mercury, and do not have the same reactions. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction, not made based on knowledge, ergo it's made from ignorance.

 

Calling the mercury compound a "poison" is part of the problem. Chlorine's a poison, right? But table salt (NaCl) is not.

Good point, but we don't use the "safe" amalgam fillings any more, do we?

I am concerned sometimes that society is so busy telling soccer moms to shut up and do what they're told that we miss an obvious sign of trouble. We WANT moms to tell us what's happening when we do things to their kids -- they're actually more qualified than the children to report effects of medicine, for example.

In a perfect world, yes. But it's not enough for the mum to tell, the MD has to listen. Why should anybody tell the MD what they think is happening when from this thread alone they would reasonably conclude that their opinions are going to be treated as anecdotal and uninformed? If they aren't going to listen, why should the mum waste her breath?

 

You can't ask people for information and then just ignore them. If you want someone to value your opinion, you have to show that you value theirs.

[swansont]

Don't treat parents or patients as idiots. If any MD made such a comment as the above to anyone I know, it would be their last visit to him. Ex Cathedra does not impress these days. There are enough thalidomide babies still alive to take the "It's safe" with a large grain of salt.

 

There's a difference between treating someone like an idiot, and treating the like they don't have relevant training in the topic under discussion. Most parents don't actually know what they are talking about on the topic of medicine. It's sometimes dangerous to do what the parents (or adult patients) want, like giving out antibiotics for viral infections, just because the parents badger the doctor about it. It's also dangerous for people to go for "alternative" treatment because they don't want to hear what the doctor is telling them.

 

Good point, but we don't use the "safe" amalgam fillings any more, do we?

 

Don't we?

[Reaper]

Most parents don't actually know what they are talking about on the topic of medicine. It's sometimes dangerous to do what the parents (or adult patients) want, like giving out antibiotics for viral infections, just because the parents badger the doctor about it. It's also dangerous for people to go for "alternative" treatment because they don't want to hear what the doctor is telling them.

 

Seconded.

[Royston]

Right, it's the jumping-to-conclusions part that's damaging. The funny thing about post hoc propter ergo hoc is that sometimes the thing that comes before turns out to be the actual cause.

Absolutely, but you need evidence to prove that is indeed the cause, until there is evidence, it doesn't limit the problem to that particular cause over any others.

How does having athsma equate to having a perfectly healthy immune system?

Asthma / Eczema (the same genetic defect) is a genetic disorder (I have it myself), which means the body doesn't produce enough of the protein filaggrin, very basically a lack of this protein means substances can easily enter the skin / lungs and prompts the immune system to attack i.e irritants such as histamine to the skin. If the immune system wasn't healthy, this simply wouldn't happen. This is the immune system doing it's job, it shouldn't be confused with autoimmune response, which is a defect with the immune system itself i.e it attacks cells the body needs.

Their logic is this:

1. There is an increase in asthma.

2. Asthma is an immune system problem.

3. We don't know why people develop Asthma.

4. It is a reasonable idea that things that are designed to mess with the immune system actually do so.

5. Vaccinations are designed to mess with the immune system.

6. You have a greater likelihood of having a non problematic immune system if you avoid things that mess with it.

It's flawed reasoning because the only commonality is the term 'immune system', which means next to nothing. You need evidence to back this up, without it you're guilty of the same shoddy conclusions that tabloids love to flaunt...for the reasons I brought up earlier.

The reasoning is not post hoc propter ergo hoc at all.

Yes it is, you need to 'prove' how they're related...not just matching terms.

it is looking at ways to minimise future risk.

Again, you need to prove that the two are connected, otherwise you could risk the health of people that would normally be protected by vaccinations...if there is irrefutable evidence of a connection, fine, tell the newspapers, otherwise it should be away from the public eye.

Don't treat parents or patients as idiots. If any MD made such a comment as the above to anyone I know, it would be their last visit to him. Ex Cathedra does not impress these days. There are enough thalidomide babies still alive to take the "It's safe" with a large grain of salt.

I said nothing of the sort...I would take the advice of a doctor over somebody who has had no medical experience, and is basing their claim on an assertion and nothing more, or is that unreasonable ? However I see Swansont, has already explained the distinction.

[Pangloss]

Absolutely, but you need evidence to prove that is indeed the cause, until there is evidence, it doesn't limit the problem to that particular cause over any others.

 

Well put.