The needle and the damage undone.
April 27, 2015 9:25 PM Subscribe
I wish this could be tattooed across the feeble foreheads of every parasitic anti-vaxxer out there.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 9:48 PM on April 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 9:48 PM on April 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
It never ceases to amaze me how people can latch onto misinformation while completely ignoring hard evidence.
posted by nickthetourist at 9:49 PM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nickthetourist at 9:49 PM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah, I was expecting a big image that just said ALL OF THEM.
posted by kafziel at 9:59 PM on April 27, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by kafziel at 9:59 PM on April 27, 2015 [16 favorites]
An interesting case went before the courts in Ontario, Canada recently.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 10:01 PM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 10:01 PM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm 61, so I was a kid in the 1950's. It may not be easy for modern kids to imagine just how terrified parents of my generation were of polio. Images of kids in iron lungs were around and the prospect was terrifying.
I remember when I was maybe 5, one time my parents took me to one of the local high schools. We had to stand in line for a really long time, and finally we got to the front. There was a big tray stacked about a foot high with sugar cubes. My parents told me to take one and eat it. (OK, whatever you say. Twist my arm.)
It was a mass vaccination for polio.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:03 PM on April 27, 2015 [22 favorites]
I remember when I was maybe 5, one time my parents took me to one of the local high schools. We had to stand in line for a really long time, and finally we got to the front. There was a big tray stacked about a foot high with sugar cubes. My parents told me to take one and eat it. (OK, whatever you say. Twist my arm.)
It was a mass vaccination for polio.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:03 PM on April 27, 2015 [22 favorites]
It was a mass vaccination for polio.
I have family members who were affected by this disease. It just boggles the mind that the current dark ages idiot brigade, if allowed to continue without intervention, may help reintroduce this disease to areas where it had formerly been eradicated. Polio may be 'gone' from North America, but it's not gone from the world.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:17 PM on April 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
I have family members who were affected by this disease. It just boggles the mind that the current dark ages idiot brigade, if allowed to continue without intervention, may help reintroduce this disease to areas where it had formerly been eradicated. Polio may be 'gone' from North America, but it's not gone from the world.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:17 PM on April 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
I know a few people who are anti-vaccination. One caught polio from the early vaccine and has been struggling with it since grade school. Another had a child who had an adverse reaction to the vaccines and went into febrile seizures and then didn't talk again for nearly a year.-he was two at the time. A lot of the military people I know got shots that caused some pretty bad reactions, heart attacks and such. I know the shots they got weren't the normal schedule, but let's just say they have trust issues now.
These are the type of people who form the core of the 'anti-vaccine' group. The name itself is a misnomer, as it groups together people who may only be opposed to some vaccines, or disagree with the schedule. But for one reason or another they get a waiver so they can attend school. Even though they are have gotten the Tdap and the MMR vaccines, they are now called anti-vaxxers.
I am just bringing this up so you can understand who is being called an idiot.
Vaccines have a cost as well as a benefit and that should be acknowledged. Some people are going to be sacrificed for the good of the rest. That fact should be acknowledged and we should honor those who take the risk and are stricken, instead of insulting their families and friends for questioning the whole thing. And if someone is going to do it, they should have the right of informed consent, which includes the right to opt out.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:48 AM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
These are the type of people who form the core of the 'anti-vaccine' group. The name itself is a misnomer, as it groups together people who may only be opposed to some vaccines, or disagree with the schedule. But for one reason or another they get a waiver so they can attend school. Even though they are have gotten the Tdap and the MMR vaccines, they are now called anti-vaxxers.
I am just bringing this up so you can understand who is being called an idiot.
Vaccines have a cost as well as a benefit and that should be acknowledged. Some people are going to be sacrificed for the good of the rest. That fact should be acknowledged and we should honor those who take the risk and are stricken, instead of insulting their families and friends for questioning the whole thing. And if someone is going to do it, they should have the right of informed consent, which includes the right to opt out.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:48 AM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
Disappointed but not surprised to see the usual bashing of "anti-vaxxers" on this thread.
The very name "anti-vaxxers" is divisive and condescending, much like the moniker "pro-lifers" sets up the idea that if someone thinks abortion should be legal, they must be "anti-life". In this world view, it's us vs. Them and anyone who doesn't fall exactly 100% in line with your view should be reviled.
Ironically, this also makes it less likely that you'll sway anyone over to your argument, because you've placed them in a defensive position.
One thing I wish more folks on mefi would understand is that it's not just a matter of pro- or anti- vax; there are shades in between.
Me, I am far from an "idiot", but I do have concerns about vaccines: some individual vaccines, how many are given at once these days being too much of a load on a small child's immune system, as well as how the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies may make them push more and more and more vaccines, not for the health of children but for the health of their bottom line.
Far too often I've felt people sweep these details aside to get on the anti-vaxxer bashing bandwagon. I'm no longer seen as a human being with nuanced beliefs that require a civil conversation to truly understand.
As for this chart, it's laughable. So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation. Metafilter came into existence before 2006 but after the years used for the 'before' stats. So using the same logic, i guess we could make another chart 'proving' that metafilter caused the decline in mortality from these diseases.
posted by mysterious_stranger at 1:01 AM on April 28, 2015
The very name "anti-vaxxers" is divisive and condescending, much like the moniker "pro-lifers" sets up the idea that if someone thinks abortion should be legal, they must be "anti-life". In this world view, it's us vs. Them and anyone who doesn't fall exactly 100% in line with your view should be reviled.
Ironically, this also makes it less likely that you'll sway anyone over to your argument, because you've placed them in a defensive position.
One thing I wish more folks on mefi would understand is that it's not just a matter of pro- or anti- vax; there are shades in between.
Me, I am far from an "idiot", but I do have concerns about vaccines: some individual vaccines, how many are given at once these days being too much of a load on a small child's immune system, as well as how the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies may make them push more and more and more vaccines, not for the health of children but for the health of their bottom line.
Far too often I've felt people sweep these details aside to get on the anti-vaxxer bashing bandwagon. I'm no longer seen as a human being with nuanced beliefs that require a civil conversation to truly understand.
As for this chart, it's laughable. So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation. Metafilter came into existence before 2006 but after the years used for the 'before' stats. So using the same logic, i guess we could make another chart 'proving' that metafilter caused the decline in mortality from these diseases.
posted by mysterious_stranger at 1:01 AM on April 28, 2015
You are fully entitled to believe/disbelieve whatever you want. You are NOT entitled to endanger vulnerable people such as infants, the elderly and the immunocompromised.
Your good health relies on the vast majority of the population being vaccinated. This is a fact. The more unvaccinated people in a population, the more at risk the vulnerable are. The vulnerable include your own unvaccinated children. This is also a fact.
Bottom line: if you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society, it is your duty to be a good citizen. Part of being a good citizen is not allowing your offspring to become stricken with preventable diseases and turning them into little Typhoid Marys/Michaels, spreading disease among those who cannot be vaccinated. If living in a civilized society and being less narcissistic is too much for you, feel free to start your own colony away from the rest of us.
You may be immune to reason, but nobody is immune to courts and lawsuits. This is where this sad, preventable fiasco is headed.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 1:22 AM on April 28, 2015 [41 favorites]
Your good health relies on the vast majority of the population being vaccinated. This is a fact. The more unvaccinated people in a population, the more at risk the vulnerable are. The vulnerable include your own unvaccinated children. This is also a fact.
Bottom line: if you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society, it is your duty to be a good citizen. Part of being a good citizen is not allowing your offspring to become stricken with preventable diseases and turning them into little Typhoid Marys/Michaels, spreading disease among those who cannot be vaccinated. If living in a civilized society and being less narcissistic is too much for you, feel free to start your own colony away from the rest of us.
You may be immune to reason, but nobody is immune to courts and lawsuits. This is where this sad, preventable fiasco is headed.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 1:22 AM on April 28, 2015 [41 favorites]
stranger: I hear people like you use vague handwavey words like "too much of a load" on immune systems a lot. I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. Do you have sort of mechanism in mind? As to profit motives... the idea that vaccines are a major source of profit is ahistorical and false. Until very recently (like the last decade) vaccines were barely break even AFAIK and it's only in the last 10 years that they've started making much money at all... and that's because they came up with some really important and good vaccines that save lives.
posted by Justinian at 1:23 AM on April 28, 2015 [40 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:23 AM on April 28, 2015 [40 favorites]
I also heard that they make some money on insulin. Diabetics beware.
posted by Justinian at 1:24 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:24 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
It was a mass vaccination for polio.
Or, was it?
*spooky CIA-type music*
I'm a hypocrite. I avoid the flu shot every year, and I will turn up to the office sick as often as not (although, I have a home office, they just won't let me telecommute) because I hate needles.
But I fully support the Australian governments new "no jab, no benefits" policy.
The polio images (and the stories) get me every time.
posted by Mezentian at 1:59 AM on April 28, 2015
Or, was it?
*spooky CIA-type music*
I'm a hypocrite. I avoid the flu shot every year, and I will turn up to the office sick as often as not (although, I have a home office, they just won't let me telecommute) because I hate needles.
But I fully support the Australian governments new "no jab, no benefits" policy.
The polio images (and the stories) get me every time.
posted by Mezentian at 1:59 AM on April 28, 2015
Me, I am far from an "idiot", but I do have concerns about vaccines: some individual vaccines, how many are given at once these days being too much of a load on a small child's immune system, as well as how the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies may make them push more and more and more vaccines, not for the health of children but for the health of their bottom line.
Many or all of these concerns have been debunked by solid research. (And the lack of profit motive in vaccines is also amply documented). I always wonder about the logic of people who think all these scientists are lying. Why?
posted by frumiousb at 2:31 AM on April 28, 2015 [27 favorites]
Many or all of these concerns have been debunked by solid research. (And the lack of profit motive in vaccines is also amply documented). I always wonder about the logic of people who think all these scientists are lying. Why?
posted by frumiousb at 2:31 AM on April 28, 2015 [27 favorites]
I have concerns about people with "concerns about vaccines" who don't know what they are talking about deciding not to vaccinate their kids and then allowing immunocompromised people who should be protected by herd immunity to die or be made very sick because of their pseudoscientific bullshit. (I also have concerns about the anti-autistic sentiment expressed by people who are willing to risk their kids dying of measles because they would rather take that risk on than have an autistic child and the way that kind of bigotry fucks up the lives of actual autistic people.)
posted by NoraReed at 2:36 AM on April 28, 2015 [32 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 2:36 AM on April 28, 2015 [32 favorites]
I have concerns about vaccines!
How do I know which one is the Super Soldier Serum and which will turn me into the Incredible Hulk?
[In all seriousness, with some new or seasonal vaccines you are playing the odds a little {and I do mean a fraction of a percent}, but mostly stuff like MMR and polio have been tested for decades. They're safe.]
posted by Mezentian at 2:42 AM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
How do I know which one is the Super Soldier Serum and which will turn me into the Incredible Hulk?
[In all seriousness, with some new or seasonal vaccines you are playing the odds a little {and I do mean a fraction of a percent}, but mostly stuff like MMR and polio have been tested for decades. They're safe.]
posted by Mezentian at 2:42 AM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
Just want to add that for every apocryphal story out there, there's one to counter it. I'm an (aging) military brat who, as a kid, has had vaccinations all over the world, to no ill effect. Apocryphal stories are apocryphal. They are not science.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 2:42 AM on April 28, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 2:42 AM on April 28, 2015 [8 favorites]
How do I know which one is the Super Soldier Serum
tumblr is super into the Steve Rogers, vaccination advocate idea, and it is my favorite
posted by NoraReed at 2:49 AM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
tumblr is super into the Steve Rogers, vaccination advocate idea, and it is my favorite
posted by NoraReed at 2:49 AM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
As for this chart, it's laughable. So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation.
That's a reasonable argument one could make for a different mechanism being responsible for the drop in frequency of these diseases, but you forgot to include the mechanism that you're arguing is responsible. What is it?
posted by IAmUnaware at 2:52 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
That's a reasonable argument one could make for a different mechanism being responsible for the drop in frequency of these diseases, but you forgot to include the mechanism that you're arguing is responsible. What is it?
posted by IAmUnaware at 2:52 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yes, I know what I'm talking about, have researched and read and thought about this a TON. Very disappointed in the mefi community right now for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about in my post. Especially love the vague reference to all the supposed studies that have debunked anything I could possibly say even though you know barely anything about my views, along with the hypocritical demand for me to prove anything I say. No conversation is possible here. If anyone actually gives a shit about anything other than piling on with abuse, feel free to send me a polite memail and I will respond.
Otherwise, yay! You all successfully harangued another person into not expressing their views around you.
posted by mysterious_stranger at 2:59 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Otherwise, yay! You all successfully harangued another person into not expressing their views around you.
posted by mysterious_stranger at 2:59 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Disappointed but not surprised to see the usual bashing of "anti-vaxxers" on this thread.
I'm pretty disappointed to see an anti-science crank pop up to spout anti-science crankery.
So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation.
Do you have any idea what childhood mortality rates were, in the pre-vaccine era? The average life expectancy of someone born in the USA in 1900 was 47. The average life expectancy of someone born today is around 80. Those extra 30 years of average life expectancy are almost entirely due to the reduction of infant and childhood mortality. In 1920 alone there were 25,000 deaths from measles, whooping cough and diphtheria, combined. With vaccines? There have been a few more than 200 deaths from whooping cough in the past 15 years, no measles deaths...those numbers are for the USA...and worldwide the WHO estimates 2500 deaths from diphtheria in 2012. Which is fewer, in a population of seven billion, than there were in the pre-vaccine era in one country with a population of around 110 million.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:15 AM on April 28, 2015 [25 favorites]
I'm pretty disappointed to see an anti-science crank pop up to spout anti-science crankery.
So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation.
Do you have any idea what childhood mortality rates were, in the pre-vaccine era? The average life expectancy of someone born in the USA in 1900 was 47. The average life expectancy of someone born today is around 80. Those extra 30 years of average life expectancy are almost entirely due to the reduction of infant and childhood mortality. In 1920 alone there were 25,000 deaths from measles, whooping cough and diphtheria, combined. With vaccines? There have been a few more than 200 deaths from whooping cough in the past 15 years, no measles deaths...those numbers are for the USA...and worldwide the WHO estimates 2500 deaths from diphtheria in 2012. Which is fewer, in a population of seven billion, than there were in the pre-vaccine era in one country with a population of around 110 million.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:15 AM on April 28, 2015 [25 favorites]
mysterious_stranger is correct that correlation is not causation. m_s is also correct that some diseases were in decline (sometimes dramatically) prior to the introduction of their vaccines. Improved hygiene, access to regular medical care, better understanding of how these diseases were transmitted, etc. all contributed to a great decline in the first half of the 20th century.
All those things can be true without altering the importance and efficacy of vaccines. Because we're not just talking about MMR, polio, and smallpox. Look at the rates of decline with the vaccines developed in the latter half of the 20th century, well after hygiene and other improvements had taken effect.
Sure, let's admit that better living conditions have helped reduce the number and severity of a great many diseases. But let's also acknowledge that vaccines have had a demonstrably significant, scientifically proven ability to dramatically reduce those effects even further.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 3:20 AM on April 28, 2015 [16 favorites]
All those things can be true without altering the importance and efficacy of vaccines. Because we're not just talking about MMR, polio, and smallpox. Look at the rates of decline with the vaccines developed in the latter half of the 20th century, well after hygiene and other improvements had taken effect.
Sure, let's admit that better living conditions have helped reduce the number and severity of a great many diseases. But let's also acknowledge that vaccines have had a demonstrably significant, scientifically proven ability to dramatically reduce those effects even further.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 3:20 AM on April 28, 2015 [16 favorites]
Well, sorry that you're taking your ball and going home, but this is a very serious public health issue and people have very strong feelings about it. "Proving anything you say" is kind of the whole problem here. There is an overwhelming body of knowledge surrounding vaccines' safety. As one of my favorite smart people once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Could you throw out a link or two to some of your research materials?
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 3:22 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 3:22 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
As for this chart, it's laughable. So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation.
You do realise that you could use this argument almost anywhere (maths/logical deduction is the only exception). If someone says "my foot hurt, so I went to the doctor, and he pulled a splinter out of it, and now it doesn't hurt", arguing that there's only a correlation between the removal of the splinter and the pain disappearing is dumb. And if you use that logic to stop other people from getting splinters pulled out of their foot when it hurts, it's worse than dumb.
posted by Ned G at 3:28 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
You do realise that you could use this argument almost anywhere (maths/logical deduction is the only exception). If someone says "my foot hurt, so I went to the doctor, and he pulled a splinter out of it, and now it doesn't hurt", arguing that there's only a correlation between the removal of the splinter and the pain disappearing is dumb. And if you use that logic to stop other people from getting splinters pulled out of their foot when it hurts, it's worse than dumb.
posted by Ned G at 3:28 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, mysterious_stranger, you led with what sounded like a fairly typical list of concerns. For instance-- the idea that too many vaccines at once being too much of a load. The thing is, that in response to these kinds of concerns there have been all kinds of efforts by groups many and varied to explore those concerns. There has never been one study which showed any benefit to delaying vaccines, for example. I have a friend who also had this concern about "too much load" and was therefore putting her son on a delayed schedule. When she was asked for her base for the concern, she came up with many web links which pointed back to non-peer reviewed opinions and a couple of theoretical discussions about how this kind of vaccine load effect would work. That's not proof-- that's opinion, and they are not the same thing.
If you have specific and very different concerns, I'm pretty sure people would listen. But my experience with folks who have said similar things is that it often boils down to a political world view where the studies by, fi, the CDC are for some reason being done in collusion with big pharma.
But I do believe that if you are going to adopt a position which puts others at potential risk, then you need to be expected to be asked for the proof of your beliefs-- particularly if there is a sizable body of evidence pointing the other direction.
posted by frumiousb at 3:29 AM on April 28, 2015 [18 favorites]
If you have specific and very different concerns, I'm pretty sure people would listen. But my experience with folks who have said similar things is that it often boils down to a political world view where the studies by, fi, the CDC are for some reason being done in collusion with big pharma.
But I do believe that if you are going to adopt a position which puts others at potential risk, then you need to be expected to be asked for the proof of your beliefs-- particularly if there is a sizable body of evidence pointing the other direction.
posted by frumiousb at 3:29 AM on April 28, 2015 [18 favorites]
Far too often I've felt people sweep these details aside to get on the anti-vaxxer bashing bandwagon. I'm no longer seen as a human being with nuanced beliefs that require a civil conversation to truly understand.
I am very, very in favour of vaccination, but I do think you're right about this. There is a tendency sometimes for people to get so worked up about vaccination that people who don't vaccinate, or vaccinate selectively or reluctantly or whatever, become kind of effigies upon which we demonstrate how pro-science we are compared to those idiots. I understand the strong feelings, but I really don't think a lot of the rhetoric around the subject helps the debate.
My child is vaccinated against everything on the routine schedule (and is actually due to get another one next week that isn't yet on that - Meningitis B, which is being added to the infant schedule in the UK shortly but which she'll be too old for, so we're paying a lot to have it done privately). I do generally trust the system, but I'm also influenced by my own experience of disease and my own work on medical history from a period where many, many more children died of infectious diseases. I have an instinctive "argh NO, must prevent!" reaction to, say, measles, which is stronger than a lot of people's in the developed world - and I see vaccines as the thing which played a huge role in taking down the horror show that was smallpox. So I'm not coming at this from an 100% objective rational view, because nobody is.
And I think it's totally reasonable to ask questions about vaccinations, as it is to ask questions about any other type of medical procedure or public health initiative.
how many are given at once these days being too much of a load on a small child's immune system
That's a kind of intuitively reasonable concern to have. But the way our immune system works is kind of counterintuitive sometimes, and this is one of those times. The studies we have on the subject demonstrate that the immune system works just as well after receiving a load of vaccines at once - and in fact, because vaccine manufacture has improved, children today are getting less of the active vaccine ingredients even though they're getting more vaccines overall. That was enough to convince me to go ahead with the routine schedule.
as well as how the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies may make them push more and more and more vaccines
Big pharma is definitely not the most ethical of industries (although vaccines aren't their most profitable product). But they are acting under severe constraints here, precisely to prevent any money-grabbing company from convincing people to buy its product based on shoddy science - they can't just say "well we got journal X to publish this paper saying our vaccine works so now you should all use it!". There are regulatory agencies and standards setting down exactly what evidence needs to be provided, what safety and other conditions need to be met during the vaccine's trials, and to decide whether or not a vaccine is worth administering to a whole population. In my country (UK), for example, these include national government or European-level regulations (MHRA or ERA), the verdict of an NHS Research Ethics committee, compliance with the EU Clinical Trials Directive and International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice, and more. These aren't set down by for-profit organisations. I probably would have severe reservations about buying in to a vaccination programme if the only people pushing it were pharmaceutical companies, but that's not the case with vaccinations.
As for this chart, it's laughable. So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation.
However, we have very good evidence that vaccination does reduce incidence and death rates. It's not the only thing that does so, of course, and it never has been (back in the 18th century smallpox was contained due to quarantines as well as immunisation).
I have seen quite a lot of people who are sceptical of vaccines claim that the massive fall in death and other severe complications due to infectious diseases is primarily due to factors other than vaccination, like improved hygiene or antibiotics for opportunistic infections. Obviously those things play a part - measles is not anywhere near as dangerous in developed countries today as it is in, say, poorer regions of Africa, where it still kills a large number of children. To suggest that they're the whole picture and that vaccination isn't relevant, though, feels like quite a step of faith, especially in a chart like the above where the 'before' stats come from times where hygiene and antibiotics were already pretty advanced. I mean, take a chart like this one (from here), showing rates of meningitis B and meningitis C after the meningitis C vaccine was introduced. Meningitis B rates do fall, for reasons that are unrelated to the vaccine, but meningitis C rates plummet to virtually nothing after the vaccine is introduced.
I really recommend this book on vaccination and our fears about it. It isn't a preachy "you-should-do-THIS!" piece - it's a wide-ranging look at the ways we talk about illness and health and our fears and how we think of our bodies and immunity, and how that influences the ways we look at vaccination. It's a complex and fascinating subject.
posted by Catseye at 3:32 AM on April 28, 2015 [34 favorites]
I am very, very in favour of vaccination, but I do think you're right about this. There is a tendency sometimes for people to get so worked up about vaccination that people who don't vaccinate, or vaccinate selectively or reluctantly or whatever, become kind of effigies upon which we demonstrate how pro-science we are compared to those idiots. I understand the strong feelings, but I really don't think a lot of the rhetoric around the subject helps the debate.
My child is vaccinated against everything on the routine schedule (and is actually due to get another one next week that isn't yet on that - Meningitis B, which is being added to the infant schedule in the UK shortly but which she'll be too old for, so we're paying a lot to have it done privately). I do generally trust the system, but I'm also influenced by my own experience of disease and my own work on medical history from a period where many, many more children died of infectious diseases. I have an instinctive "argh NO, must prevent!" reaction to, say, measles, which is stronger than a lot of people's in the developed world - and I see vaccines as the thing which played a huge role in taking down the horror show that was smallpox. So I'm not coming at this from an 100% objective rational view, because nobody is.
And I think it's totally reasonable to ask questions about vaccinations, as it is to ask questions about any other type of medical procedure or public health initiative.
how many are given at once these days being too much of a load on a small child's immune system
That's a kind of intuitively reasonable concern to have. But the way our immune system works is kind of counterintuitive sometimes, and this is one of those times. The studies we have on the subject demonstrate that the immune system works just as well after receiving a load of vaccines at once - and in fact, because vaccine manufacture has improved, children today are getting less of the active vaccine ingredients even though they're getting more vaccines overall. That was enough to convince me to go ahead with the routine schedule.
as well as how the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies may make them push more and more and more vaccines
Big pharma is definitely not the most ethical of industries (although vaccines aren't their most profitable product). But they are acting under severe constraints here, precisely to prevent any money-grabbing company from convincing people to buy its product based on shoddy science - they can't just say "well we got journal X to publish this paper saying our vaccine works so now you should all use it!". There are regulatory agencies and standards setting down exactly what evidence needs to be provided, what safety and other conditions need to be met during the vaccine's trials, and to decide whether or not a vaccine is worth administering to a whole population. In my country (UK), for example, these include national government or European-level regulations (MHRA or ERA), the verdict of an NHS Research Ethics committee, compliance with the EU Clinical Trials Directive and International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice, and more. These aren't set down by for-profit organisations. I probably would have severe reservations about buying in to a vaccination programme if the only people pushing it were pharmaceutical companies, but that's not the case with vaccinations.
As for this chart, it's laughable. So many of you would react differently if this were a similar chart but covering a less-charged subject. You'd rightfully point out that correlation is not causation.
However, we have very good evidence that vaccination does reduce incidence and death rates. It's not the only thing that does so, of course, and it never has been (back in the 18th century smallpox was contained due to quarantines as well as immunisation).
I have seen quite a lot of people who are sceptical of vaccines claim that the massive fall in death and other severe complications due to infectious diseases is primarily due to factors other than vaccination, like improved hygiene or antibiotics for opportunistic infections. Obviously those things play a part - measles is not anywhere near as dangerous in developed countries today as it is in, say, poorer regions of Africa, where it still kills a large number of children. To suggest that they're the whole picture and that vaccination isn't relevant, though, feels like quite a step of faith, especially in a chart like the above where the 'before' stats come from times where hygiene and antibiotics were already pretty advanced. I mean, take a chart like this one (from here), showing rates of meningitis B and meningitis C after the meningitis C vaccine was introduced. Meningitis B rates do fall, for reasons that are unrelated to the vaccine, but meningitis C rates plummet to virtually nothing after the vaccine is introduced.
I really recommend this book on vaccination and our fears about it. It isn't a preachy "you-should-do-THIS!" piece - it's a wide-ranging look at the ways we talk about illness and health and our fears and how we think of our bodies and immunity, and how that influences the ways we look at vaccination. It's a complex and fascinating subject.
posted by Catseye at 3:32 AM on April 28, 2015 [34 favorites]
(I probably get some sort of bad typist prize for how many times I used the word "concern" in that comment. Yikes.)
posted by frumiousb at 3:33 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by frumiousb at 3:33 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
(And that'll teach me not to preview while typing long responses, because I see you've left the conversation. Oh, well...)
posted by Catseye at 3:33 AM on April 28, 2015
posted by Catseye at 3:33 AM on April 28, 2015
Some people are going to be sacrificed for the good of the rest.
I disagree. This is not the trolley problem. There is no group of people who were secretly destined for a perfect life in a vaccine‐free world, but who are in our world cruelly struck down by vaccines.
It’s a roll of the dice either way. Choosing to vaccinate means choosing to play with vastly better odds. No one should ever regret that choice.
posted by Fongotskilernie at 3:55 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
I disagree. This is not the trolley problem. There is no group of people who were secretly destined for a perfect life in a vaccine‐free world, but who are in our world cruelly struck down by vaccines.
It’s a roll of the dice either way. Choosing to vaccinate means choosing to play with vastly better odds. No one should ever regret that choice.
posted by Fongotskilernie at 3:55 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
mysterious_stranger: Me, I am far from an "idiot", but I do have concerns about vaccines: some individual vaccines, how many are given at once these days being too much of a load on a small child's immune system, as well as how the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies may make them push more and more and more vaccines, not for the health of children but for the health of their bottom line.I first want to thank you for speaking up, I know its got to be hard with just how easily everyone here gets their blood up into a rage for anyone expressing any kind of doubts about vaccines and it is also far from stupid to think critically about anything so important as vaccines. There are, however, very good reasons why the concerns you've expressed are not very convincing to people with expertise in immunology and epidemiology - among whom there is a rock solid global consensus - which are difficult to express to the public very well. I'd like to give explaining why the much larger number of vaccines given early is not actually the kind of concern one might very intuitively think it is a shot, and that will unfortunately take a somewhat embarrassing amount of text and some background in how the adaptive human immune system works as well as what its challenges are. I hope you'll indulge me in following along because I'd like to hear what you think.
Our adaptive immune systems work in a really beautiful way that should, in theory, protect us from an infinite number of potential pathogens but has a few significant drawbacks. As the white blood cells that drive the adaptive immune response get made they each are born with a completely new antibody through a very randomized process that creates a very specific and very random shape on the business end that could, in theory, bind to anything.1 These antibodies are how our bodies recognize foreign invaders that have evolved some means of evading our innate immune systems, and in theory there are enough white blood cells running around our bodies that one of them will have an antibody that will be effective against functionally anything. One white blood cell though is not enough to meaningfully fight off an infection, and so whenever a mature white blood cell encounters something that triggers its antibody it immediately races back to a lymph node and starts dividing like crazy to make enough cells to eliminate the infection. Then, once the infection is cleared, almost all of the new clones of the effective will trigger themselves for death to make room for new white blood cells. One of the big draw backs to the fantastically complex process that is the adaptive immune system is how long it takes to get going, needing cells to divide so much is a significant rate limiter, so a significant portion of them will change in such a way as to protect themselves from degradation and remain as a reservoir of memory cells waiting in case the infection ever comes back such that the process has a big head start the second time. This is the most common reason why when people get sick with infections they then get better, as well as why people don't tend to get sick from the same thing twice.
I can sort of see the logic in assuming that this process is all pretty stressful, and that maybe babies would have a hard time dealing with it, but you've got to understand that the moment that the child leaves the sterile uterus their immune system is suddenly surrounded by the functionally infinite number of antigens present on the 100 trillion bacteria found in the human gut and on human skin. The infant immune system is amazingly robust, the how of it all is truly beautiful if you've got the stomach for learning all of the four letter acronyms you've got to memorize to understand what we know of it, and the effort required for it to learn from the 14 vaccines delivered in 26 doses as infants is absolutely piddlyshit compared to the stress from learning the contents of a single sneeze. Just the act of birth is asking more than 1025 more than the full compliment of vaccines. At the same time the benefits are amazing, instead of having to learn from a thing that is trying to kill it, the infant immune system gets to learn from target practice on something that is dead in the water or better yet a inert piece that happens to be the weak spot for the whole damn thing.
Whenever a baby is exposed to a new antigen, or a molecular shape that can be recognized by the immune system, it can go through the whole process I described above and the sheer amount of exposures that babies just handle like champs is truly astounding. How much stress each exposure to something new causes is entirely dependent on factors that we know very well and can manipulate easily in vaccines. For example, when your innate immune system sees one of a small set of very specific patterns embedded into our DNA that are associated only with pathogens in combination with something new, our immune system goes into overdrive, which can sometimes be dangerous. So, even though I could use these patterns in my lab to vaccinate rabbits for research purposes, no one would ever think to use them in human vaccines despite the fact that using them would make vaccines incredibly cheap and effective. Especially with infant vaccines, they are formulated to cause such a trivial amount of stress that the vast majority of babies notice nothing beyond the prick. The idea is just to make sure that the hundred or so most important antigens to have antibodies premade against are a part of the trillions and trillions that go through their systems on a daily basis. It is important to understand that vaccines are made from viruses and bacteria found in nature, and the process they go through in children is identical to the natural one in every important way except for the amount of control we are able to exercise over it to ensure safety and efficacy. They are generally made by killing the thing with heat leaving its corpse as a book the body can read and learn from, or growing the thing at lower and lower temperatures until it can't replicate effectively in you anymore allowing the body to learn from real but harmless infections, or in more advanced vaccines by providing only what we already understand to be the weak spot of the thing.
1One of the big problems with that strategy though is what happens when the antibody recognizes something that is actually us or for what ever reason actually belongs in us and shouldn't be attacked. Our bodies deal with this by immediately killing all of the white blood cells that are born with an antibody that recognizes a target within the first few weeks of being created, the idea is that if it sees something that quickly its probably something that should be there. Auto-immune disorders are what happens when this system fails for a variety of reasons and our immune cells start attacking things that are us.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:01 AM on April 28, 2015 [115 favorites]
mysterious_stranger: "Yes, I know what I'm talking about, have researched and read and thought about this a TON. Very disappointed in the mefi community right now for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about in my post. Especially love the vague reference to all the supposed studies that have debunked anything I could possibly say even though you know barely anything about my views, along with the hypocritical demand for me to prove anything I say. No conversation is possible here. If anyone actually gives a shit about anything other than piling on with abuse, feel free to send me a polite memail and I will respond."As a working molecular biologist with a graduate level education in immunology, who has incidentally never taken so much as a pen from a pharmaceutical company, I am actually regularly impressed by how often dedicated people who hold various kinds of anti-vaxx positions have clearly deeper levels of knowledge than the people who self select into debating them with what end up being arguments from the authority of others or overly simplistic models. That doesn't mean though that those anti-vaxx positions are right however, even if its very easy to make them make sense. I don't doubt that you have read and thought about this very thoroughly and conscientiously, and I certainly don't think you're stupid, many of the anti-vaxx arguments that I've seen do make a lot of sense in the absence of what really often ends up needing to be deep graduate level knowledge, but there are some of us here who can indeed engage with the ideas your posting on the level you are presenting them.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:31 AM on April 28, 2015 [28 favorites]
My mother caught diphtheria when she was a little girl, back before that vaccination was available, and she lived through it, but only after a scary stay in the isolation ward of the hospital. A friend who caught polio before that vaccination was available is still walking, but only with difficulty. And my spouse is largely deaf because the rubella vaccination wasn't available to her mother.
Vaccination is one of the coolest things we have ever come up with.
posted by pracowity at 4:33 AM on April 28, 2015 [20 favorites]
Vaccination is one of the coolest things we have ever come up with.
posted by pracowity at 4:33 AM on April 28, 2015 [20 favorites]
mysterious_stranger: "have researched and read and thought about this a TON".
Great!
Could you point me in the direction of your paper on the subject? Could you share your data? What was your experimental design? Double blind randomized control trial? Sample size? Which statistical tests did you do to establish statistical significance? Which particular vaccines did you study? How long was the window you used to evaluate outcomes? You know, solid research which disproves or calls into question the common scientific wisdom is how people make their name in science: name a famous scientist, they upended the previous explanatory paradigm in their field. You could be a famous scientist if you've done the research...
On Preview: What Blasdelb, the actual scientist who studies exactly these sorts of things, said.
posted by Freen at 7:11 AM on April 28, 2015 [12 favorites]
Great!
Could you point me in the direction of your paper on the subject? Could you share your data? What was your experimental design? Double blind randomized control trial? Sample size? Which statistical tests did you do to establish statistical significance? Which particular vaccines did you study? How long was the window you used to evaluate outcomes? You know, solid research which disproves or calls into question the common scientific wisdom is how people make their name in science: name a famous scientist, they upended the previous explanatory paradigm in their field. You could be a famous scientist if you've done the research...
On Preview: What Blasdelb, the actual scientist who studies exactly these sorts of things, said.
posted by Freen at 7:11 AM on April 28, 2015 [12 favorites]
Vaccines have a cost as well as a benefit and that should be acknowledged.
Rhetorical frippery. Literally every aspect of technological progress, every facet of the march of civilization, has a cost as well as a benefit. Electricity? Cars? Tremendous costs. Mind-boggling costs. Even industrial-scale agriculture has serious costs. Do vaccines have a cost? Sure they do. But compared to just about every other goddamn thing ever invented, the cost/benefit ratio of vaccines is outrageously strongly in favor of their existence.
posted by mstokes650 at 7:35 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
Rhetorical frippery. Literally every aspect of technological progress, every facet of the march of civilization, has a cost as well as a benefit. Electricity? Cars? Tremendous costs. Mind-boggling costs. Even industrial-scale agriculture has serious costs. Do vaccines have a cost? Sure they do. But compared to just about every other goddamn thing ever invented, the cost/benefit ratio of vaccines is outrageously strongly in favor of their existence.
posted by mstokes650 at 7:35 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
I wouldn't have such a problem with the vaccination doubt movement if it wasn't for the fact that their point zero go-to source for their doubt validation is a man who was stripped of his license to practice medicine for multiple violations of experimental ethics and falsification of data.
posted by mephron at 7:38 AM on April 28, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by mephron at 7:38 AM on April 28, 2015 [15 favorites]
My kids were all vaccinated. I've been vaccinated. I've got a flu shot for the past few years and will probably continue to do so. If I ever get to go to the Amazon rainforest, I will get loaded up with whatever vaccines are recommended to me. So, if we're going to get all tribal about it, I'm "pro-vaxx".
That said, I can relate at least a little bit to mysterious_stranger. Not because I'm "anti-vaxx", but because I'm anti-GMO. As such, I am frequently accused of being "anti science" or a luddite or something similar, even though I am an actual working scientist who's been "pro science" since I was in elementary school.
Here's the thing most of the "SCIENCE FTW!" types don't seem to get (or don't seem to want to get): science isn't everything. It's one of humanity's greatest inventions, but it doesn't, by itself, guarantee good outcomes by the time things translate into social/economic policy or are turned over to the thrill-ride of the market. The world we live in is dominated by crony capitalists with immense wealth and power. This skewed power distribution corrupts everything it touches, including science. So when it comes to GMOs, I simply do not trust the system to do it right, no matter what the science says. I don't oppose GMOs because of the science. I generally oppose them because of how they have played out socially. And this sort of critique can be levelled at other "miracle" technologies (nukes, herbicides and pesticides, pharmaceuticals, etc.) The scientifically-demonstrable potential benefits are frequently undermined by various negative socio-psycho-political factors (like, say, rampant greed). And, worse, the negative consequences are often systemic, and hence don't show up until decades after the introduction of the tech--far too long for any pre-release scientific study to catch.
So, while my personal cost-benefit calculation on vaccines (speaking generically) has never wavered from the "net plus" side of things. I can understand at least one possible reason for someone not feeling the same way that I do.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:42 AM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
That said, I can relate at least a little bit to mysterious_stranger. Not because I'm "anti-vaxx", but because I'm anti-GMO. As such, I am frequently accused of being "anti science" or a luddite or something similar, even though I am an actual working scientist who's been "pro science" since I was in elementary school.
Here's the thing most of the "SCIENCE FTW!" types don't seem to get (or don't seem to want to get): science isn't everything. It's one of humanity's greatest inventions, but it doesn't, by itself, guarantee good outcomes by the time things translate into social/economic policy or are turned over to the thrill-ride of the market. The world we live in is dominated by crony capitalists with immense wealth and power. This skewed power distribution corrupts everything it touches, including science. So when it comes to GMOs, I simply do not trust the system to do it right, no matter what the science says. I don't oppose GMOs because of the science. I generally oppose them because of how they have played out socially. And this sort of critique can be levelled at other "miracle" technologies (nukes, herbicides and pesticides, pharmaceuticals, etc.) The scientifically-demonstrable potential benefits are frequently undermined by various negative socio-psycho-political factors (like, say, rampant greed). And, worse, the negative consequences are often systemic, and hence don't show up until decades after the introduction of the tech--far too long for any pre-release scientific study to catch.
So, while my personal cost-benefit calculation on vaccines (speaking generically) has never wavered from the "net plus" side of things. I can understand at least one possible reason for someone not feeling the same way that I do.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:42 AM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
Me, I am far from an "idiot", but I do have concerns about vaccines: some individual vaccines,
Yeah, well that's great to hear.
There was a whooping cough outbreak at my son's middle school this past winter. Some parents have concerns about the vaccination so not all kids are vaccinated. My son's grade is due to get a booster next year; the current vaccine is wearing off. So my son's friend came down with whooping cough. Lost two months of school, passed it on to his mother.
People in Japan are from being "idiots" but they have some concerns about MMR vaccine. And so of course every winter there is an outbreak mumps. My son has been vaccinated but caught it anyway (we spend several months a year in Japan and my sons go to school there as well as in Canada). He was off of school for 3 or 4 days, but his classmates were off for two weeks.
You can't eat when you have mumps (it's incredibly painful), so the kids lose weight. This is a disaster when you are a child.
The "chief medical health officer" of my community recommends vaccinations. He is a doctor, and has specialized in public health. He doesn't receive any money from "big pharma." He's smarter than I am, so I think I will listen to him instead of that Wakefield fellow the anti-vaxxers love so much.
I'm not going to say I respect your position, but I am surprised you would drop into this thread and invite a pileon.
posted by Nevin at 7:43 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, well that's great to hear.
There was a whooping cough outbreak at my son's middle school this past winter. Some parents have concerns about the vaccination so not all kids are vaccinated. My son's grade is due to get a booster next year; the current vaccine is wearing off. So my son's friend came down with whooping cough. Lost two months of school, passed it on to his mother.
People in Japan are from being "idiots" but they have some concerns about MMR vaccine. And so of course every winter there is an outbreak mumps. My son has been vaccinated but caught it anyway (we spend several months a year in Japan and my sons go to school there as well as in Canada). He was off of school for 3 or 4 days, but his classmates were off for two weeks.
You can't eat when you have mumps (it's incredibly painful), so the kids lose weight. This is a disaster when you are a child.
The "chief medical health officer" of my community recommends vaccinations. He is a doctor, and has specialized in public health. He doesn't receive any money from "big pharma." He's smarter than I am, so I think I will listen to him instead of that Wakefield fellow the anti-vaxxers love so much.
I'm not going to say I respect your position, but I am surprised you would drop into this thread and invite a pileon.
posted by Nevin at 7:43 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
"And I think it's totally reasonable to ask questions about vaccinations, as it is to ask questions about any other type of medical procedure or public health initiative."
Yes it is. But it's not totally reasonable to ignore the answers, particularly when those same questions keep getting the same answers over and over again.
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:45 AM on April 28, 2015 [15 favorites]
Yes it is. But it's not totally reasonable to ignore the answers, particularly when those same questions keep getting the same answers over and over again.
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:45 AM on April 28, 2015 [15 favorites]
One good way to test whether vaccines are contributing to the decline of disease is to refuse to give vaccines to some people and see if unvaccinated persons are more likely to fall sick than vaccinated persons. Of course, that would be highly unethical, but fortunately we have a large pool of vaccine-shunning volunteers, and sure enough, they are catching and spreading diseases that were previously not an issue in the U.S. So now we know.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:00 AM on April 28, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:00 AM on April 28, 2015 [19 favorites]
I have seen quite a lot of people who are sceptical of vaccines claim that the massive fall in death and other severe complications due to infectious diseases is primarily due to factors other than vaccination, like improved hygiene or antibiotics for opportunistic infections. Obviously those things play a part - measles is not anywhere near as dangerous in developed countries today as it is in, say, poorer regions of Africa, where it still kills a large number of children
Although no one here has made that argument, I've heard others use it, and I have another response. I grew up in the early 60s. In my neighborhood (SF Bay Area), every kid caught measles, German measles, mumps, and chicken pox (I'm probably forgetting one or two). EVERY KID! There may have been a handful of exceptions, but parents tried to make sure their kids caught them because these diseases are much worse when you are an adult, and can lead to miscarriage, which happened more than once in our neighborhood.
These were one parent working, one parent stay-at-home families. These houses were spotless. They were much cleaner than typical houses in similar neighborhoods today, and, I repeat, every kid caught these diseases, and now no one does.
So lets put that 'improved hygiene' argument to bed once and for all.
Let me tell you from experience, the shots are infinitely better than getting the diseases, much fewer bad outcomes, much less misery.
posted by eye of newt at 9:04 AM on April 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Although no one here has made that argument, I've heard others use it, and I have another response. I grew up in the early 60s. In my neighborhood (SF Bay Area), every kid caught measles, German measles, mumps, and chicken pox (I'm probably forgetting one or two). EVERY KID! There may have been a handful of exceptions, but parents tried to make sure their kids caught them because these diseases are much worse when you are an adult, and can lead to miscarriage, which happened more than once in our neighborhood.
These were one parent working, one parent stay-at-home families. These houses were spotless. They were much cleaner than typical houses in similar neighborhoods today, and, I repeat, every kid caught these diseases, and now no one does.
So lets put that 'improved hygiene' argument to bed once and for all.
Let me tell you from experience, the shots are infinitely better than getting the diseases, much fewer bad outcomes, much less misery.
posted by eye of newt at 9:04 AM on April 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Here's a plea for vaccination from Roald Dahl, who's daughter died of the measles.
posted by eye of newt at 9:05 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by eye of newt at 9:05 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
Far too often I've felt people sweep these details aside to get on the anti-vaxxer bashing bandwagon. I'm no longer seen as a human being with nuanced beliefs that require a civil conversation to truly understand.
This. First, to establish cred, I guess: I'm as pro-vaccine as it gets. I get every vaccine as soon as Kaiser lets me re-up. I even get my flu shot, though I'm not 100% convinced about that one and I don't think it should be mandatory.
And yet- the self-righteous brigade that shows up as soon as someone is anything other than ALL THE VACCINES RIGHT NOW ALL THE TIME SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! is really horrible and I pretty much don't want to be associated with "my side."
For instance, my friends got their kids vaccinated on a different schedule. (Basically they spread the vaccines over a year or something.) There are a lot of reasons to do this. I remember one of them was probably some "don't want to overwhelm the system" but more of it was trying to figure out which vaccine was causing side effects if one of them did, WHICH THEY OFTEN DO, btw. And now guess what? By the definition of a lot of the pro-vax side they are anti-science anti-vaxxers. THAT'S WHO YOU'RE ALIENATING!
The (visible) pro-vaccine side has turned into fundamentalists and they are undermining their arguments by being unreasonable, black-and-white thinking jerks who would rather be right than actually learn why someone might think differently from them.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:25 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
This. First, to establish cred, I guess: I'm as pro-vaccine as it gets. I get every vaccine as soon as Kaiser lets me re-up. I even get my flu shot, though I'm not 100% convinced about that one and I don't think it should be mandatory.
And yet- the self-righteous brigade that shows up as soon as someone is anything other than ALL THE VACCINES RIGHT NOW ALL THE TIME SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! is really horrible and I pretty much don't want to be associated with "my side."
For instance, my friends got their kids vaccinated on a different schedule. (Basically they spread the vaccines over a year or something.) There are a lot of reasons to do this. I remember one of them was probably some "don't want to overwhelm the system" but more of it was trying to figure out which vaccine was causing side effects if one of them did, WHICH THEY OFTEN DO, btw. And now guess what? By the definition of a lot of the pro-vax side they are anti-science anti-vaxxers. THAT'S WHO YOU'RE ALIENATING!
The (visible) pro-vaccine side has turned into fundamentalists and they are undermining their arguments by being unreasonable, black-and-white thinking jerks who would rather be right than actually learn why someone might think differently from them.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:25 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am often torn on this subject: Rationally I totally understand that herd immunity is the best thing for everyone, and I am fully vaccinated...but, I can understand the fear as well.
My uncle contracted polio from one of the earlier vaccines. He still has a limp (it kept him out of Vietnam! So, blessings in disguise and all of that), and there was certainly some fear in the family after that...but all the other kids were vaccinated.
I had a reaction to the cocktail of vaccinations I received in the US Army prior to my deployment overseas, and was hospitalized for two days.
My ex-wife had a reaction to a whopping cough vaccine as a child..throat closed up, rushed to hospital, etc.
We really debated the whole vaccine issue. Argued is probably a better word.
Anyway, the fact remains that while it is true that vaccines do not cause autism (or 100 other things we aren't sure about) ...there are certainly serious, dangerous reactions to the vaccines (take a look through the vaccine injury compensation table for examples).
But the risk of those reactions (from the vaccine) is much lower than the risk of bad reactions (including death) of the disease itself. So it is a statistically 'good' risk assuming you will be exposed. And since there is no way (that I know of) to minimize that risk other than mass vaccinations it seems like a solid choice.
But some people with which i have argued over that idea like to point out that by vaccinating you are actively exposing your child to the risk...where there is no guarantee that they would be exposed to the actual disease in the wild. They are basically taking a different gamble ..and we all know that people are not always rational players when it comes to risk taking and perceived risk vs. gains.
I guess my entire point there is that some (incredibly small number of) people DO have adverse (and even fatal) reactions to vaccines...and people are afraid of the risk. That might make them frustrating to talk to and try to convince them to vaccinate...but it doesn't make them idiots. Well, not automatically anyway; it makes them human.
In fact, I'd love to have something to use to convince opponents of vaccination that it is both ' good for society' and 'perfectly safe' ....but I can only find supporting evidence of the former.. and 'mostly safe'
Again, this is coming from someone that has first-person experience with adverse reactions...and have seen first-hand the lifelong effect of one. And I chose to vaccinate. So I don't need to be convinced to do it. I just wanted to point out why this conversation isn't as simple as ' hurf durf idiots are dumb'
On Preview: Great post Blasdelb ! and it actually helps make my point: '..[Vaccines] are formulated to cause such a trivial amount of stress that the vast majority of babies notice nothing beyond the prick'
That is 100% true....but 'vast majority' does not equal 'ALL'. And there is some old adage about the about how the odds are not statistically insignificant to the minority that are affected by it.
People are afraid of flying, even though it is safer than driving , but they drive everywhere.. It isn't rational, and it isn't helped by the fact that planes DO crash (rarely).
Convincing people to vaccinate (in a society like the US where most communicable diseases have been mostly eradicated) is convincing people that the odds of encountering the disease is greater than the odds of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. And I am not sure how to do that, exactly.
posted by das_2099 at 9:28 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
My uncle contracted polio from one of the earlier vaccines. He still has a limp (it kept him out of Vietnam! So, blessings in disguise and all of that), and there was certainly some fear in the family after that...but all the other kids were vaccinated.
I had a reaction to the cocktail of vaccinations I received in the US Army prior to my deployment overseas, and was hospitalized for two days.
My ex-wife had a reaction to a whopping cough vaccine as a child..throat closed up, rushed to hospital, etc.
We really debated the whole vaccine issue. Argued is probably a better word.
Anyway, the fact remains that while it is true that vaccines do not cause autism (or 100 other things we aren't sure about) ...there are certainly serious, dangerous reactions to the vaccines (take a look through the vaccine injury compensation table for examples).
But the risk of those reactions (from the vaccine) is much lower than the risk of bad reactions (including death) of the disease itself. So it is a statistically 'good' risk assuming you will be exposed. And since there is no way (that I know of) to minimize that risk other than mass vaccinations it seems like a solid choice.
But some people with which i have argued over that idea like to point out that by vaccinating you are actively exposing your child to the risk...where there is no guarantee that they would be exposed to the actual disease in the wild. They are basically taking a different gamble ..and we all know that people are not always rational players when it comes to risk taking and perceived risk vs. gains.
I guess my entire point there is that some (incredibly small number of) people DO have adverse (and even fatal) reactions to vaccines...and people are afraid of the risk. That might make them frustrating to talk to and try to convince them to vaccinate...but it doesn't make them idiots. Well, not automatically anyway; it makes them human.
In fact, I'd love to have something to use to convince opponents of vaccination that it is both ' good for society' and 'perfectly safe' ....but I can only find supporting evidence of the former.. and 'mostly safe'
Again, this is coming from someone that has first-person experience with adverse reactions...and have seen first-hand the lifelong effect of one. And I chose to vaccinate. So I don't need to be convinced to do it. I just wanted to point out why this conversation isn't as simple as ' hurf durf idiots are dumb'
On Preview: Great post Blasdelb ! and it actually helps make my point: '..[Vaccines] are formulated to cause such a trivial amount of stress that the vast majority of babies notice nothing beyond the prick'
That is 100% true....but 'vast majority' does not equal 'ALL'. And there is some old adage about the about how the odds are not statistically insignificant to the minority that are affected by it.
People are afraid of flying, even though it is safer than driving , but they drive everywhere.. It isn't rational, and it isn't helped by the fact that planes DO crash (rarely).
Convincing people to vaccinate (in a society like the US where most communicable diseases have been mostly eradicated) is convincing people that the odds of encountering the disease is greater than the odds of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. And I am not sure how to do that, exactly.
posted by das_2099 at 9:28 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Being an anti-vaxxer would be like claiming you should have the right to choose to drive drunk because other alternatives, like taxis and Ubers, sometimes get into accidents or the drivers go crazy and beat up the passengers, and they shouldn't have to take that risk. Completely ignoring that the risk of drunk driving is much higher AND ENDANGERS INNOCENT PEOPLE.
In California, the anti-vaxxers are opposing a bill to end the personal belief exemption for vaccinations required to enroll children in public school. They say it would infringe on an unvaccinated child's right to a free public education. This is ridiculous. Vaccinate your child, then they can get their free public education. Or homeschool them. "But I can't home school, I would have to quit my job and would have no way to make a living!" Right, so you want your free public education IN A WAY THAT ENDANGERS EVERY OTHER CHILD IN THE CLASSROOM because it's too much of a burden to you to homeschool. Sorry, but you do not have the right to cause serious illness and death of other people's children due to your selfishness. Please act like a citizen in a society who has responsibilities to those around you, and not a wacko in an isolated compound (unless you want to go live in an isolated compound).
posted by Mallenroh at 10:13 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
In California, the anti-vaxxers are opposing a bill to end the personal belief exemption for vaccinations required to enroll children in public school. They say it would infringe on an unvaccinated child's right to a free public education. This is ridiculous. Vaccinate your child, then they can get their free public education. Or homeschool them. "But I can't home school, I would have to quit my job and would have no way to make a living!" Right, so you want your free public education IN A WAY THAT ENDANGERS EVERY OTHER CHILD IN THE CLASSROOM because it's too much of a burden to you to homeschool. Sorry, but you do not have the right to cause serious illness and death of other people's children due to your selfishness. Please act like a citizen in a society who has responsibilities to those around you, and not a wacko in an isolated compound (unless you want to go live in an isolated compound).
posted by Mallenroh at 10:13 AM on April 28, 2015 [13 favorites]
blasdelb's comment is really great (flagged as fantastic). It gives an overview of the immune system and its early development that is understandable to the interested layperson and still has enough scientific detail to help think about and make decisions about vaccinations. I'm pro-vaxx, with basic science & logic literacy, with an M.D. dad and R.N. mom and hadn't heard that particular, specific description of why it's OK to give a baby 4 or 5 vaccines at once.
He's one of the most knowledgeable commenters in the thread, and he's also the most respectful toward the people that worry about the risks of vaccines, because, as he says, "many of the anti-vaxx arguments that I've seen do make a lot of sense in the absence of what really often ends up needing to be deep graduate level knowledge".
The corollary there is that there are a lot of smug pro-vaxxers arguing for a good thing, but doing it from relative ignorance. Not all of them are smug & ignorant--I'm sure you're not--but I think I was. Our doula kept encouraging us to do a delayed vaccination schedule, and that didn't sound unreasonable to me. I subscribe to Science; I used to read my dad's medical journals as a kid; I'm an interested layperson but not an expert. It wasn't until we talked to our pediatrician and I started doing research that I learned about the specific studies that showed the super low risk of a bunch of vaccines together, and that my semi-educated intuition was wrong. It was a relatively small point, but it did illuminate for me the fact that most of us on both sides aren't actually equipped to reason about this beyond some relatively basic or superficial aspects.
So mostly we have to trust the people who do have the expert knowledge. And I strongly believe in the process of science, but that doesn't mean it's always right, or that it doesn't make terrible mistakes that ruin and end lots of people's lives. Especially around childbirth, medicine has done some pretttty fucked up shit over the years. So I empathize with people that find it hard to trust experts. I've chosen to trust them (though sometimes it's "trust but verify", with regard to looking up studies and doing my best to evaluate them), and I still roll my eyes at lots of anti-vaxx arguments I hear, and wish my pediatrician would require all patients to be vaccinated, but I try to remember that questioning vaccination isn't inherently dumb.
posted by jjwiseman at 10:20 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
He's one of the most knowledgeable commenters in the thread, and he's also the most respectful toward the people that worry about the risks of vaccines, because, as he says, "many of the anti-vaxx arguments that I've seen do make a lot of sense in the absence of what really often ends up needing to be deep graduate level knowledge".
The corollary there is that there are a lot of smug pro-vaxxers arguing for a good thing, but doing it from relative ignorance. Not all of them are smug & ignorant--I'm sure you're not--but I think I was. Our doula kept encouraging us to do a delayed vaccination schedule, and that didn't sound unreasonable to me. I subscribe to Science; I used to read my dad's medical journals as a kid; I'm an interested layperson but not an expert. It wasn't until we talked to our pediatrician and I started doing research that I learned about the specific studies that showed the super low risk of a bunch of vaccines together, and that my semi-educated intuition was wrong. It was a relatively small point, but it did illuminate for me the fact that most of us on both sides aren't actually equipped to reason about this beyond some relatively basic or superficial aspects.
So mostly we have to trust the people who do have the expert knowledge. And I strongly believe in the process of science, but that doesn't mean it's always right, or that it doesn't make terrible mistakes that ruin and end lots of people's lives. Especially around childbirth, medicine has done some pretttty fucked up shit over the years. So I empathize with people that find it hard to trust experts. I've chosen to trust them (though sometimes it's "trust but verify", with regard to looking up studies and doing my best to evaluate them), and I still roll my eyes at lots of anti-vaxx arguments I hear, and wish my pediatrician would require all patients to be vaccinated, but I try to remember that questioning vaccination isn't inherently dumb.
posted by jjwiseman at 10:20 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
People are free to believe whatever they want - up to the point where it harms someone else. Up to that point, nobody gives a tinker's. If this foolishness gets worse, the decision will be made for them. They don't get to have it both ways.
Christ, we all have to trust somebody at some point in life, it might as well be the community that has the most thorough info and who've spent much of their working lives studying it, no? Would you choose a celebrity's opinion over that? Wait...don't answer that.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:19 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Christ, we all have to trust somebody at some point in life, it might as well be the community that has the most thorough info and who've spent much of their working lives studying it, no? Would you choose a celebrity's opinion over that? Wait...don't answer that.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:19 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Typical anti-vax post on the internet:
1) Hello, I am intelligent and well-read person. I have 3 college degrees.
2) I am deeply against vaccines for many important reasons.
3) None of you are qualified to discuss these reasons. I'm insulted that you would even ask me to explain myself.
4) You are all oppressors.
5) McScience, BigMedicine, etc.
6) You are all oppressors.
7) Something about natural remedies.
8) I'm leaving this website forever.
(fin)
posted by Avenger at 11:26 AM on April 28, 2015 [19 favorites]
1) Hello, I am intelligent and well-read person. I have 3 college degrees.
2) I am deeply against vaccines for many important reasons.
3) None of you are qualified to discuss these reasons. I'm insulted that you would even ask me to explain myself.
4) You are all oppressors.
5) McScience, BigMedicine, etc.
6) You are all oppressors.
7) Something about natural remedies.
8) I'm leaving this website forever.
(fin)
posted by Avenger at 11:26 AM on April 28, 2015 [19 favorites]
Typical anti-vax post on the internet:
Yeah, has the same whiff of our favorite scientologist's take on psychiatry, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, education does not necessarily equal critical thinking skills.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:54 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, has the same whiff of our favorite scientologist's take on psychiatry, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, education does not necessarily equal critical thinking skills.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:54 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
every kid caught measles, German measles, mumps, and chicken pox
I forgot all about those ones. We were all spotted and pocked and swollen and itchy and achy...
posted by pracowity at 2:40 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I forgot all about those ones. We were all spotted and pocked and swollen and itchy and achy...
posted by pracowity at 2:40 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yay, I get to recycle a comment in an appropriate way:
I'm An Anti-Braker
Guys, I wanted to let you know about a personal decision I recently made. I don’t really feel like discussing it, but I want to put my position out there. Please be respectful. This is a really long post, but please read the whole thing.
I’m taking the brakes off my car. This isn’t a rash decision, so please listen up.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:27 PM on April 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm An Anti-Braker
Guys, I wanted to let you know about a personal decision I recently made. I don’t really feel like discussing it, but I want to put my position out there. Please be respectful. This is a really long post, but please read the whole thing.
I’m taking the brakes off my car. This isn’t a rash decision, so please listen up.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:27 PM on April 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
I don't think the "anti-braker" analogy helps because it's a bullying tactic that is more about piling on and asserting a smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority than actually trying to influence opinion; I am going to risk sounding pompously superior by saying that there is probably no way to influence the opinion of an anti-vaxxer.
That's why I try to speak about my own experience with vaccines, as I did above. I will also say that our older son nearly died about a week after birth because of sepsis. The pediatrician at Obama Hospital (in Japan) saved him. So when it came time for our son's first round of shots, and this was still at a time when Wakefield had not been exposed as a horrible, criminal fraud, we trusted our doctor when he said there was nothing to worry about.
You can trust the public health experts on this one.
posted by Nevin at 8:47 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's why I try to speak about my own experience with vaccines, as I did above. I will also say that our older son nearly died about a week after birth because of sepsis. The pediatrician at Obama Hospital (in Japan) saved him. So when it came time for our son's first round of shots, and this was still at a time when Wakefield had not been exposed as a horrible, criminal fraud, we trusted our doctor when he said there was nothing to worry about.
You can trust the public health experts on this one.
posted by Nevin at 8:47 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
and asserting a smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority
Sometimes you really are morally and intellectually superior though.
posted by Justinian at 8:50 PM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
Sometimes you really are morally and intellectually superior though.
posted by Justinian at 8:50 PM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also, the not insignificant number of believers of the BigPharma - EvilScientists - Doctors n' Big Bank in Cahoots multi-headed Hydra Conspiracy have obviously never worked in a gov't (or similar) Kafkaesque bureaucracy before. It's side-splittingly laughable and very, very naive. It's hard enough coordinating the fucking lunchroom let alone a conspiracy of that complexity.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 9:36 PM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 9:36 PM on April 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
there is probably no way to influence the opinion of an anti-vaxxer.
Not with mere presentation of facts: When you present evidence that threatens a person’s worldview, it can actually strengthen their beliefs. This is called the “worldview backfire effect”. One of the first scientific experiments that observed this effect dates back to 1975.
(the anti-braking piece I linked is just an amusing example of preaching to the choir)
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 10:52 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not with mere presentation of facts: When you present evidence that threatens a person’s worldview, it can actually strengthen their beliefs. This is called the “worldview backfire effect”. One of the first scientific experiments that observed this effect dates back to 1975.
(the anti-braking piece I linked is just an amusing example of preaching to the choir)
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 10:52 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's the thing most of the "SCIENCE FTW!" types don't seem to get (or don't seem to want to get): science isn't everything...So when it comes to GMOs, I simply do not trust the system to do it right, no matter what the science says.
So on the question of whether GMO food is safe or not, if you don't trust science, how do you decide? Are you just flipping a coin?
Sure science gets it wrong sometimes, but unless you've got some other reliable, non-scientific way of deciding whether vaccines or GMO foods are safe, it's only going to be blind luck if you happen to guess which things science is currently wrong about.
posted by straight at 10:58 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
So on the question of whether GMO food is safe or not, if you don't trust science, how do you decide? Are you just flipping a coin?
Sure science gets it wrong sometimes, but unless you've got some other reliable, non-scientific way of deciding whether vaccines or GMO foods are safe, it's only going to be blind luck if you happen to guess which things science is currently wrong about.
posted by straight at 10:58 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
So on the question of whether GMO food is safe or not, if you don't trust science, how do you decide?
I'm not in that camp, but my guess is that the key to this method is to insist on labelling so you can avoid eating GMO products, at least for the time being, because you don't trust a relatively few researchers to get it right when they have big corporations pushing to get the new products out the door and past the cash registers.
Using this system, you would stand back and watch as the early adopters merrily ate GMO foods and stuffed their kids full with it, and if they all went an appreciable time without developing weird ailments or having three-headed babies, and if GMO crops didn't suddenly turn into grey goo and destroy the world, you could consider it safe. But until then, you would like to be able to go on eating non-GMO foods based on careful labels.
If we are all guinea pigs, they want to be in the control group, not the treatment group.
posted by pracowity at 12:17 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not in that camp, but my guess is that the key to this method is to insist on labelling so you can avoid eating GMO products, at least for the time being, because you don't trust a relatively few researchers to get it right when they have big corporations pushing to get the new products out the door and past the cash registers.
Using this system, you would stand back and watch as the early adopters merrily ate GMO foods and stuffed their kids full with it, and if they all went an appreciable time without developing weird ailments or having three-headed babies, and if GMO crops didn't suddenly turn into grey goo and destroy the world, you could consider it safe. But until then, you would like to be able to go on eating non-GMO foods based on careful labels.
If we are all guinea pigs, they want to be in the control group, not the treatment group.
posted by pracowity at 12:17 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
So on the question of whether GMO food is safe or not, if you don't trust science, how do you decide?
Mondo dentro specifically said that the problem is not that they "don't trust science," but rather they are wary of social/economic policy and corruption, and that they "simply do not trust the system to do it right, no matter what the science says. I don't oppose GMOs because of the science. I generally oppose them because of how they have played out socially." Which is what they were referring to when they said "science isn't everything" – ie, it's not the only factor they take into consideration.
(I'm not pulling for any pro- or anti- GMO dog in this race, just pointing out that this is an apparent misreading of the actual comment.)
posted by taz at 12:20 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mondo dentro specifically said that the problem is not that they "don't trust science," but rather they are wary of social/economic policy and corruption, and that they "simply do not trust the system to do it right, no matter what the science says. I don't oppose GMOs because of the science. I generally oppose them because of how they have played out socially." Which is what they were referring to when they said "science isn't everything" – ie, it's not the only factor they take into consideration.
(I'm not pulling for any pro- or anti- GMO dog in this race, just pointing out that this is an apparent misreading of the actual comment.)
posted by taz at 12:20 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
With GMO I get this about the larger social context. I have problems with big ag as an industry, of which the use of GMO (as a technology) is not being deployed in a way that benefits the many people. When people oppose agribusiness farming practices (which include, for instance, roundup ready GMO) then it's a great conversation to have and I suspect I would largely agree with them.
On the other hand, if people are asserting that there is something intrinsically wrong with GMO crops (as compared to high levels of selective breeding) ala the Frankenfood discussions (labeling), then I take issue with *that*. Those assertions have not been supported by studies to date (and I think have hopelessly muddied the waters in the discussions about agribusiness practice).
When it comes to vaccinations, I fail to see the relevance of this larger social context. And this may be part of the inability of the two sides to talk sensibly, to be honest. My friends who are anti-vaxx really *do* believe in this big pharma/CDC conspiracy (not all people who question vaccinations may fall into this camp, but the ones I know do) and they treat the scientific studies as either lies or sideshow to the bigger question. I notice most have retreated from the MMR causes autism position, for instance, but now they have just fallen back to this immune load response thing to replace it.
I also wonder how much common ground we need to find in a debate on public health and under what circumstances we are required to entertain all theories. If someone holds a view which all of the tested available evidence weighs against, are we obliged to treat it as equally likely? I sometimes feel that in an effort to see all sides to every argument, we strengthen flatly untrue positions by treating them as equally relevant. How is it different, for instance, than creationists arguing that schools should teach intelligent design as an alternative theory since it might be true?
posted by frumiousb at 2:06 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
On the other hand, if people are asserting that there is something intrinsically wrong with GMO crops (as compared to high levels of selective breeding) ala the Frankenfood discussions (labeling), then I take issue with *that*. Those assertions have not been supported by studies to date (and I think have hopelessly muddied the waters in the discussions about agribusiness practice).
When it comes to vaccinations, I fail to see the relevance of this larger social context. And this may be part of the inability of the two sides to talk sensibly, to be honest. My friends who are anti-vaxx really *do* believe in this big pharma/CDC conspiracy (not all people who question vaccinations may fall into this camp, but the ones I know do) and they treat the scientific studies as either lies or sideshow to the bigger question. I notice most have retreated from the MMR causes autism position, for instance, but now they have just fallen back to this immune load response thing to replace it.
I also wonder how much common ground we need to find in a debate on public health and under what circumstances we are required to entertain all theories. If someone holds a view which all of the tested available evidence weighs against, are we obliged to treat it as equally likely? I sometimes feel that in an effort to see all sides to every argument, we strengthen flatly untrue positions by treating them as equally relevant. How is it different, for instance, than creationists arguing that schools should teach intelligent design as an alternative theory since it might be true?
posted by frumiousb at 2:06 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
If someone holds a view which all of the tested available evidence weighs against, are we obliged to treat it as equally likely?
No, but are people arguing that position?
People who don't want their children vaccinated need to keep their unvaccinated kids out of school (and probably out of other places where people congregate) while they go through the usual legal channels to try to convince the rest of the world that they have the right to not vaccinate their children.
People who don't want to eat GMO foods need to not eat GMO foods, and they need to go through the usual legal channels to try to convince the rest of the world that they at least need to get food labels to help them avoid GMO foods.
posted by pracowity at 3:04 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, but are people arguing that position?
People who don't want their children vaccinated need to keep their unvaccinated kids out of school (and probably out of other places where people congregate) while they go through the usual legal channels to try to convince the rest of the world that they have the right to not vaccinate their children.
People who don't want to eat GMO foods need to not eat GMO foods, and they need to go through the usual legal channels to try to convince the rest of the world that they at least need to get food labels to help them avoid GMO foods.
posted by pracowity at 3:04 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I honestly do not see how it is anything but child abuse to not allow a child to be vaccinated for the fairly harmful diseases (measles, etc). Even if not for the herd immunity concerns, allowing your kid to get that shit is pretty fucking terrible, right? I mean, I get that the first priority is to keep them from spreading it around at school, but even the children of whackjobs deserve to live to adulthood.
posted by NoraReed at 3:44 AM on April 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 3:44 AM on April 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
I honestly do not see how it is anything but child abuse to not allow a child to be vaccinated for the fairly harmful diseases (measles, etc).
I agree. Mumps is extremely painful, and the child cannot eat. Whooping cough is extremely frightening; children cough so hard and so much and for so long that they vomit.
posted by Nevin at 6:49 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
I agree. Mumps is extremely painful, and the child cannot eat. Whooping cough is extremely frightening; children cough so hard and so much and for so long that they vomit.
posted by Nevin at 6:49 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
(Whooping cough is fucking terrifying. I saw one video of a baby who had it, and then like the next day I was trying to schedule a TDaP booster with my doctor.)
If the antivax boogeyman is no longer autism, then what, exactly, are those parents trying to protect their children from? I mean, taking as given that it's possible to overload a child's immune system like they say it is, what does that mean in practical, concrete terms? Do people die from overloaded immune systems? Do they get sick? What (supposedly) happens?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:42 AM on April 29, 2015
If the antivax boogeyman is no longer autism, then what, exactly, are those parents trying to protect their children from? I mean, taking as given that it's possible to overload a child's immune system like they say it is, what does that mean in practical, concrete terms? Do people die from overloaded immune systems? Do they get sick? What (supposedly) happens?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:42 AM on April 29, 2015
If the antivax boogeyman is no longer autism,
Autism is still the bogeyman. There are people who think that Wakefield is the victim of a conspiracy by big pharma. Parents at my son's school will argue about it on the parent association Facebook page.
posted by Nevin at 7:59 AM on April 29, 2015
Autism is still the bogeyman. There are people who think that Wakefield is the victim of a conspiracy by big pharma. Parents at my son's school will argue about it on the parent association Facebook page.
posted by Nevin at 7:59 AM on April 29, 2015
taz and pracowity have fairly accurately captured the perspective of my earlier comment--but just to be even more clear: I am very much in favor of democratically mandated vaccinations (for the most part), and, yes, I think withholding the standard vaccinations from one's child is a very bad choice (again, in general). But would I feel that way about all vaccines? No. I will use my powers of critical thinking and discernment to evaluate new situations as they arise. And my critical thinking is informed by science, to be sure, but also by my knowledge of political history, society, social behavior, etc.
What I was criticising is a tawdry view of science that interprets it as the sine qua non of consciousness and the last word on, well, anything. Science and technology have created much improvement in human society. But much of that improvement has been undercut by the relentless human striving for power and social domination. Science is embedded in this larger human drama. Self-styled pro-science types only reveal themselves to be narrow-focus nerds when they insist on lecturing science skeptics as if the only possible problem is the skeptics' ignorance of science. In my view, it is frequently the science advocates who are displaying their ignorance of social/political forces--not to mention history--and, thereby reveal a deep ignorance of what science actually is or can be.
Blasdelb's outstanding comment really shows how it should be done. It combines a deep understanding of the science with a wider empathy that represents the best of what a scientist should strive to be. But very few of us can do that, especially outside of our immediate area of expertise. So I confess that I find it almost impossible to be consistent about this stuff. Vaccination is among the easiest of these science and society issues, it seems to me (that is, the cost benefit analysis is pretty clear cut, and the fearmongering pretty clearly debunked). But climate change, as one obvious example, is much more complex and therefore much harder to cope with. In a climate change debate you might find me in a shouting match where I attempt to use the cultural authority of science just like some of the pro-vaxxers do. But how well has that worked for us, so far?
posted by mondo dentro at 8:25 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
What I was criticising is a tawdry view of science that interprets it as the sine qua non of consciousness and the last word on, well, anything. Science and technology have created much improvement in human society. But much of that improvement has been undercut by the relentless human striving for power and social domination. Science is embedded in this larger human drama. Self-styled pro-science types only reveal themselves to be narrow-focus nerds when they insist on lecturing science skeptics as if the only possible problem is the skeptics' ignorance of science. In my view, it is frequently the science advocates who are displaying their ignorance of social/political forces--not to mention history--and, thereby reveal a deep ignorance of what science actually is or can be.
Blasdelb's outstanding comment really shows how it should be done. It combines a deep understanding of the science with a wider empathy that represents the best of what a scientist should strive to be. But very few of us can do that, especially outside of our immediate area of expertise. So I confess that I find it almost impossible to be consistent about this stuff. Vaccination is among the easiest of these science and society issues, it seems to me (that is, the cost benefit analysis is pretty clear cut, and the fearmongering pretty clearly debunked). But climate change, as one obvious example, is much more complex and therefore much harder to cope with. In a climate change debate you might find me in a shouting match where I attempt to use the cultural authority of science just like some of the pro-vaxxers do. But how well has that worked for us, so far?
posted by mondo dentro at 8:25 AM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mondo dentro specifically said that the problem is not that they "don't trust science," but rather they are wary of social/economic policy and corruption, and that they "simply do not trust the system to do it right, no matter what the science says. I don't oppose GMOs because of the science. I generally oppose them because of how they have played out socially."
Yeah, I get that, but I'm wondering why GMOs in particular. There's a bunch of relatively-new stuff we're exposed to that we think is safe based on the best science published so far, where there are also social/economic pressures one might suspect could effect the integrity of scientific research. Are you going to wait another 10 (20?) years to get a cell phone in case they actually do cause brain cancer?
I'm not trying to be snarky there, just wondering why someone would single out GMOs in particular for suspicion that social/economic forces are corrupting the process of scientific inquiry.
posted by straight at 9:23 AM on April 29, 2015
Yeah, I get that, but I'm wondering why GMOs in particular. There's a bunch of relatively-new stuff we're exposed to that we think is safe based on the best science published so far, where there are also social/economic pressures one might suspect could effect the integrity of scientific research. Are you going to wait another 10 (20?) years to get a cell phone in case they actually do cause brain cancer?
I'm not trying to be snarky there, just wondering why someone would single out GMOs in particular for suspicion that social/economic forces are corrupting the process of scientific inquiry.
posted by straight at 9:23 AM on April 29, 2015
Are you going to wait another 10 (20?) years to get a cell phone in case they actually do cause brain cancer?
A lot of them are doing that. Most of them aren't letting their kids have one. And pretty much everyone is using a wired earpiece rather than putting their phone right next to their head. (or they have those cars that have speakerphone built in.)
so as for this: but I'm wondering why GMOs in particular. it's not GMOs in particular but it's GMOs especially because once that cat's out of the bag it's very hard to put it back in again.
fwiw, the anti GMO crowd that I talk to, of which I am one, aren't worried about effects on our bodies, they're worried about effects on the environment, the pollinators, the even vaster quantities of pesticides that can be dumped into the ground, killing every bug and streambed within reach.
As someone with hardly any allergies, this is only an academic concern for me, but I will be curious about what will happen when an apple now has, say, shellfish components to it.
The people who conflate GMO with traditional hybridization drive me crazy because they pull it out like it's a trump card, despite the two being apples and oranges.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:38 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
A lot of them are doing that. Most of them aren't letting their kids have one. And pretty much everyone is using a wired earpiece rather than putting their phone right next to their head. (or they have those cars that have speakerphone built in.)
so as for this: but I'm wondering why GMOs in particular. it's not GMOs in particular but it's GMOs especially because once that cat's out of the bag it's very hard to put it back in again.
fwiw, the anti GMO crowd that I talk to, of which I am one, aren't worried about effects on our bodies, they're worried about effects on the environment, the pollinators, the even vaster quantities of pesticides that can be dumped into the ground, killing every bug and streambed within reach.
As someone with hardly any allergies, this is only an academic concern for me, but I will be curious about what will happen when an apple now has, say, shellfish components to it.
The people who conflate GMO with traditional hybridization drive me crazy because they pull it out like it's a trump card, despite the two being apples and oranges.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:38 AM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm not trying to be snarky there, just wondering why someone would single out GMOs in particular for suspicion that social/economic forces are corrupting the process of scientific inquiry.
I have to ask: are you serious? Like, you can't imagine what could possibly be wrong with GMOs or how such technology might go off the rails? Maybe you haven't read enough dystopian science fiction?
Anyway... I just reached for GMOs as an available example that I can relate to from my own experience. It was meant to illustrate that arguments based on little more than "because science" do a disservice to both sides of the discussion: they not only trivialize potential valid concerns about a technology that are not easily captured by science itself, but they also seem to champion a narrow view of the scientific enterprise that underestimates its limitations and ignores the wider social context in which it takes place.
So, it's not that GMOs make a very tight analogy with vaccines in all respects (I can avoid GMO food and it won't hurt anybody--except the manufacturers). But the style of argumentation by the "pro" side is frequently the same, and that's what I'm reacting to.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:11 AM on April 29, 2015
I have to ask: are you serious? Like, you can't imagine what could possibly be wrong with GMOs or how such technology might go off the rails? Maybe you haven't read enough dystopian science fiction?
Anyway... I just reached for GMOs as an available example that I can relate to from my own experience. It was meant to illustrate that arguments based on little more than "because science" do a disservice to both sides of the discussion: they not only trivialize potential valid concerns about a technology that are not easily captured by science itself, but they also seem to champion a narrow view of the scientific enterprise that underestimates its limitations and ignores the wider social context in which it takes place.
So, it's not that GMOs make a very tight analogy with vaccines in all respects (I can avoid GMO food and it won't hurt anybody--except the manufacturers). But the style of argumentation by the "pro" side is frequently the same, and that's what I'm reacting to.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:11 AM on April 29, 2015
Science is embedded in this larger human drama. Self-styled pro-science types only reveal themselves to be narrow-focus nerds when they insist on lecturing science skeptics as if the only possible problem is the skeptics' ignorance of science.
Well, ok, but there is no human endeavour that exists that isn't embedded in this larger human drama. When the anti-vaxxers are trying to use their own bastardized view of science to back up their claims, what are we left with to counter these views if not science? Their warped understanding has real effects on real people. As someone who has a close family member who is undergoing cancer treatment and is therefore immunocompromised, this issue is not just an academic one. This issue can have horrifying consequences for many, many people.
They can easily ignore us dilettantes on the internet citing science, but they won't be able to ignore the eventual courts and lawmakers citing science with the full support of the rest of us.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 1:57 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, ok, but there is no human endeavour that exists that isn't embedded in this larger human drama. When the anti-vaxxers are trying to use their own bastardized view of science to back up their claims, what are we left with to counter these views if not science? Their warped understanding has real effects on real people. As someone who has a close family member who is undergoing cancer treatment and is therefore immunocompromised, this issue is not just an academic one. This issue can have horrifying consequences for many, many people.
They can easily ignore us dilettantes on the internet citing science, but they won't be able to ignore the eventual courts and lawmakers citing science with the full support of the rest of us.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 1:57 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maybe you haven't read enough dystopian science fiction?
Those books are called "fiction" for good reason. Anyway, we lived in a far more dystopian world (if you can believe it) before the Green Revolution and increased crop yields, and we're going to need another Green Revolution with GMO's to survive climate change.
The people with the most to gain from GMO's are not affluent parents in San Jose or wherever that are not vaccinating their kids. The people with the most to gain from GMO's are the slum dwellers subsisting on $3 a day (by 2050 more than half the planet's population live in slums), who literally recycle garbage for a living and are not responsible for the C02 emissions that are causing climate change.
The people who are responsible for the C02 emissions causing climate change (which means drought and famine) are people in the North, people like us in North America and Europe, a relatively small percentage of the population.
We're wealthy and we are the people who can afford to spend money on GMO's to develop new strains of crops.
I think there are plenty of issues about why GMO's are developed and deployed, but their fitness for human consumption is not one of my concerns.
posted by Nevin at 3:00 PM on April 29, 2015
Those books are called "fiction" for good reason. Anyway, we lived in a far more dystopian world (if you can believe it) before the Green Revolution and increased crop yields, and we're going to need another Green Revolution with GMO's to survive climate change.
The people with the most to gain from GMO's are not affluent parents in San Jose or wherever that are not vaccinating their kids. The people with the most to gain from GMO's are the slum dwellers subsisting on $3 a day (by 2050 more than half the planet's population live in slums), who literally recycle garbage for a living and are not responsible for the C02 emissions that are causing climate change.
The people who are responsible for the C02 emissions causing climate change (which means drought and famine) are people in the North, people like us in North America and Europe, a relatively small percentage of the population.
We're wealthy and we are the people who can afford to spend money on GMO's to develop new strains of crops.
I think there are plenty of issues about why GMO's are developed and deployed, but their fitness for human consumption is not one of my concerns.
posted by Nevin at 3:00 PM on April 29, 2015
Maybe you haven't read enough dystopian science fiction?
There are dystopian science fiction stories about robot uprisings and GMO disasters. What decision-making tools are you using when you decide using computers is OK but avoid GMOs if not some version of science?
posted by straight at 5:17 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are dystopian science fiction stories about robot uprisings and GMO disasters. What decision-making tools are you using when you decide using computers is OK but avoid GMOs if not some version of science?
posted by straight at 5:17 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
mondo dentro: "I have to ask: are you serious? Like, you can't imagine what could possibly be wrong with GMOs or how such technology might go off the rails? Maybe you haven't read enough dystopian science fiction?The methods of scientific inquiry are, of course, not the only valuable way of seeing the world, and are worse than useless without values to guide them. However, I think we very easily run into a lot of trouble both when those methods are sublimated too much into the imaginative fancy of science fiction when we consider public policy, and also when our understanding of the social context of a technological advance starts being guided more by that science fiction then properly formulated scientific models. I'd like to try explaining why I am not so concerned about the safety of GMOs even in the context of corporate control, why I am much more concerned about how the anti-GMO movement is affecting the fairness and social justice of how GMOs are integrated in society than the nefariousness of any CEO, and finally the parallels I do see between the anti-GMO and anti-vaxx movements. You've mentioned that you are a working scientist, but I hope you don't mind if I try to either avoid jargon when I can or explain my terms carefully for those following along and that you'll indulge me in this because I'd like to hear what you think.
Anyway... I just reached for GMOs as an available example that I can relate to from my own experience. It was meant to illustrate that arguments based on little more than "because science" do a disservice to both sides of the discussion: they not only trivialize potential valid concerns about a technology that are not easily captured by science itself, but they also seem to champion a narrow view of the scientific enterprise that underestimates its limitations and ignores the wider social context in which it takes place."
I know its only spring, but I'm already looking forward to the end of summer and apple season so that I can stop by an ancient apple tree at an abbey that is right near where I work for a snack from time to time. As far as I can tell the tree is probably a cross between something like a Cox's Orange Pippen and some probably extinct idiosyncratic Flemish variety, and I can be reasonably certain that the variety has never been properly tested for pretty much anything related to safety much less effects on the environment. I need to carefully peel apples before I eat them, being allergic to apple skins, but I'm going to enjoy the fuck out of the couple of apples I eat because they are fucking delicious and there is no reason to think that this one might be unsafe even though no one can give me a specific answer to the very important question of whether these apples are more immunogenic than more standard ones. Indeed, while the techniques involved on apple crossings are pretty dramatically random and unpredictable in their genetic effects, I don't know the molecular basis for my allergy, and I don't even know who crossed these apples beyond maybe monks, I do know enough about apples to be sure that there are pretty much no plausible ways in which this one could hurt me. While no, formally I cannot prove the negative, I still feel comfortable assuring myself that eating this apple is not going to mess with my microbiota anymore than any other apple would, and its not going to cause cancer lumps to grow out of my head like Séralini's unfortunate rigged mice.
I feel safe eating these apples for all the same reasons why I think that most of the testing that GMO techniques have been put through since the 90s, which all arrives at the same pretty much ontologically necessary conclusion, is wildly excessive. These techniques for modifying the genomes of economically important critters are not substantially more dangerous, or even different from a safety perspective, than more traditional ones except in how powerful and specific they are. For example, check out this freakishly delicious looking genetically modified cow, its kind was first created some time just before 1807 in Belgium when a calf was born with a mutation to its myostatin gene, which has incidentally never gone through any characterization process for safety. Myostatin is necessary for the ordinary processes of telling muscles to stop growing and when the gene responsible for myostatin was inactivated through a mysterious genetic event this was the result. We have no proof that this mutation doesn't have some bizarre effect on gut flora when you eat it, no one has ever tested it, but does that mean its dangerous? No, even though we have no idea what even inactivated the gene. It could have been a point mutation is some essential amino acid, it could have been a virus inserting its DNA into the middle of the gene to mysterious and uncharacterized effects, it could be a chromosomal abnormality altering the expression of thousands of genes, but there isn't really a conceivable way it could have happened that would matter one damn to us - knowing of course that the cows are relatively healthy aside from how they require c sections to give birth.
On a biological level, the only meaningful difference between that Belgian farmer's stroke of luck and what happens when researchers manipulate the genomes of useful crops is intentionality, and the only difference between the apples from my favorite tree and an Arctic apple is how much simpler and intentional arctic modification is. The techniques are not mysterious or unknown, or even new, this is now the thirty year anniversary of the first useful GMO product. Questions relating to the safety of GMO techniques have been trivial, if not solidly answered, for decades now. We are rapidly approaching an age of gut flora modified to make our poop change color to screen for or diagnose disease and bacteria that make meat packaging turn purple when they encounter gasses associated with meat spoilage, but our understanding of GMOs hasn't left the 70s and our conversations about them haven't left the 90s. These are projects that undergrads could come up with and implement, imagine what Greenpeace with its 320 million dollar budget could accomplish with replacing Monsanto's seed division rather than flailing at it, if only it wedged its head out of its collective ass and gave a shit about something other than being greener, angrier, and more useless than thou? The increased yields that the next generation of technology promises will mean less need for farmland and a world where third world farmers could compete - if the technology is distributed equitably, increased pest and disease resistance will mean less need for expensive and harmful inputs like pesticides, improved shelf-life and transportation characteristics will mean that more crops can be adapted to less developed economies, improved drought tolerance will allow drought prone regions to weather climate change without parasitic western food aid, improved salt tolerance will open up blighted land to self sustainable communities, and increased nutrient density already means greater food security.
The eagerly apocalyptic science fiction surrounding GMOs is at best a distraction from the real problems with how GMOs are economically structured, which I would argue increasingly stem largely from the anti-GMO movement. As the strong patents from the 90s keep running out, the tools we use for editing genomes become ever more powerful and easy to use with innovations like CRISPR-Cas9 systems, and the biotechnology workforce grows we have the opportunity for a radical transformation in how seeds are bred. Genetic manipulation that is either commercially viable or more directly socially valuable no longer requires the kind of expensive centralized development that put this technology in the hands of large corporations, and the only thing keeping it there now is the dedicated efforts of the anti-GMO movement scaring consumers away from goods that can be marketed to them rather than farmers and scaring voters into requiring uselessly expensive centralized testing regimens as part of regulation. I'd much rather we focus the work of our new biotechnology workforce on more valuable efforts than just running a little bit faster on the pesticide treadmill in the first world, but far from standing in the way of that Big Ag is actively supporting it, while the anti-GMO movement seems to be focusing on picking on the little guys they can actually tackle. Projects like Golden Rice and Rothamsted's wheat conducted not-for-profit should be the norm, food security is a human right and the technology that enables it has no business being abandoned by us to be picked up and patented by private entities. This would be trivially easy to do now with all kinds of awesome projects that can produce higher yields with lower inputs or better produce, if only the anti-GMO movement would abandon its focus on science fiction and get on with the business of supporting alternatives to Big Ag.
The reasons why the anti-GMO movement necessarily can't do that are where I see the parallels with the anti-vaxx movement. Its the almost religious fervor backing a blind faith in the natural and just how rapidly the healthy citizen oversight that is desperately needed to make our capitalist system work for us rather than just capitalists turns into loose associations and conspiratorial thinking. The pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines have demonstrated over and over again that they absolutely do need watchful eyes keeping them honest, but just like with the anti-GMO movement, when we have eyes that see danger and conspiracy everywhere; they're no longer actually watching. It is a type of activism that takes on a zealot's understanding of science rather than a student's where, having run down the rabbit hole, 'truth' becomes a tool rather than a goal. It quickly comes to resemble all of the worst impulses of industry with all of their bullshit but none of their resources. When science is used like a drunk man might use a lamppost, for support rather than illumination, it quickly becomes apparent to everyone who isn't immersed how little a community can be trusted to accurately report what is around them as everything they say resembles a blurry drunken haze of things that do or do not support their crusade. The only real solution is the proper application of that lamppost, the humble search for truth and the honest communication of findings, the "because science". When people have deeper understandings of science, its nomenclature, its process, and the patterns it has found, it becomes more difficult for both powerful charlatans and petty ones to peddle their shit.
There are real concerns to be found in GMO technology, just like there are to be found in vaccines, but I don't think either the anti-GMO nor the anti-vaxx movements are really capable of seeing them anymore.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:42 AM on April 30, 2015 [14 favorites]
On a biological level, the only meaningful difference between that Belgian farmer's stroke of luck and what happens when researchers manipulate the genomes of useful crops is intentionality,
See, this just isn't true. Putting pig bits in a tomato is not the same as a regular tomato mutation. But there is no talking to people who see them as the same thing because they aren't seeing any of the shades of grey.
I don't actually have a problem with the pig gene in a tomato except that I don't trust our government's testing and regulation system, which is so corporation owned and operated. Other people have stated this better up thread but at this point I'm pretty sure no one is going to convince the other side, if no shades of grey are to be acknowledged.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:12 AM on April 30, 2015
See, this just isn't true. Putting pig bits in a tomato is not the same as a regular tomato mutation. But there is no talking to people who see them as the same thing because they aren't seeing any of the shades of grey.
I don't actually have a problem with the pig gene in a tomato except that I don't trust our government's testing and regulation system, which is so corporation owned and operated. Other people have stated this better up thread but at this point I'm pretty sure no one is going to convince the other side, if no shades of grey are to be acknowledged.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:12 AM on April 30, 2015
Putting pig bits in a tomato is not the same as a regular tomato mutation.
The difference is speed and the likelihood of big, disruptive changes. It's a little like invasive species. Theoretically, a native plant could, through mutation, take on the same traits that makes Kudzu able to overrun an existing ecosystem. But it's more likely to happen when you drop an entirely new species into an ecosystem.
It's entirely possible to get a big, disruptive change through regular tomato mutation and breeding, but it's more likely when you drop big chunks of entirely new DNA into the plant.
posted by straight at 10:31 AM on April 30, 2015
The difference is speed and the likelihood of big, disruptive changes. It's a little like invasive species. Theoretically, a native plant could, through mutation, take on the same traits that makes Kudzu able to overrun an existing ecosystem. But it's more likely to happen when you drop an entirely new species into an ecosystem.
It's entirely possible to get a big, disruptive change through regular tomato mutation and breeding, but it's more likely when you drop big chunks of entirely new DNA into the plant.
posted by straight at 10:31 AM on April 30, 2015
The pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines have demonstrated over and over again that they absolutely do need watchful eyes keeping them honest, but just like with the anti-GMO movement, when we have eyes that see danger and conspiracy everywhere; they're no longer actually watching.
Quoted for Truth.
posted by straight at 10:32 AM on April 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Quoted for Truth.
posted by straight at 10:32 AM on April 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hey folks, I mentioned science fiction because I see being confused about the possible reasons that GMOs could go wrong as a failure of the imagination. It is a ridiculous misreading of what I wrote to interpret it as suggestion that sci fi be a policy guide.
Scientist's, technologists, and the powerful interests that sponsor them have a long history of exaggerating the potential benefits of their work while underplaying (if not ignoring all together) the potential negative impacts. As it was with nuclear power in the 50s, so it is today with GMOs. If one wants to be a credible defender of GMOs, they need to at least acknowledge the potential risks, including both the technical aspects (which fall under the purview of "hard" science) and sociopolitical which (which do not).
posted by mondo dentro at 11:38 AM on April 30, 2015
Scientist's, technologists, and the powerful interests that sponsor them have a long history of exaggerating the potential benefits of their work while underplaying (if not ignoring all together) the potential negative impacts. As it was with nuclear power in the 50s, so it is today with GMOs. If one wants to be a credible defender of GMOs, they need to at least acknowledge the potential risks, including both the technical aspects (which fall under the purview of "hard" science) and sociopolitical which (which do not).
posted by mondo dentro at 11:38 AM on April 30, 2015
The pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines have demonstrated over and over again that they absolutely do need watchful eyes keeping them honest, but just like with the anti-GMO movement, when we have eyes that see danger and conspiracy everywhere; they're no longer actually watching.
I'm glad this was quoted for truth. Because it is important.
But there's a corollary: We have seen time and time again that science needs to be defended, but when we have defenders that can only spout rote scientific doctrine without understanding its limitations and role in the larger society, they are no longer defending.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:44 AM on April 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm glad this was quoted for truth. Because it is important.
But there's a corollary: We have seen time and time again that science needs to be defended, but when we have defenders that can only spout rote scientific doctrine without understanding its limitations and role in the larger society, they are no longer defending.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:44 AM on April 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Scientist's, technologists, and the powerful interests that sponsor them have a long history of exaggerating the potential benefits of their work while underplaying (if not ignoring all together) the potential negative impacts. As it was with nuclear power in the 50s, so it is today with GMOs. If one wants to be a credible defender of GMOs, they need to at least acknowledge the potential risks, including both the technical aspects (which fall under the purview of "hard" science) and sociopolitical which (which do not).
But at some point you have to go the next step and try to quantify those risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision about whether we should go ahead with GMOs or nuclear power. It's not enough to just wave your hands and say, "But imagine all the things that could go wrong!"
posted by straight at 2:06 PM on April 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
But at some point you have to go the next step and try to quantify those risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision about whether we should go ahead with GMOs or nuclear power. It's not enough to just wave your hands and say, "But imagine all the things that could go wrong!"
posted by straight at 2:06 PM on April 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older History as data science | console.mihai(); // Thank you, Mihai Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by klanawa at 9:46 PM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]