Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology > Persecution of Anti-Vaxxers Will Backfire on Believers in Scientism: 1

Persecution of Anti-Vaxxers Will Backfire on Believers in Scientism: 1

Over the past few months, we have seen a barrage of attention-seeking types, supported by the dying MSM, who claim to defend “science” from anti-vaxxers (link 1, link 2 and link 3). However, as anybody who has read enough about the history of modern medicine knows, there have been anti-vaxxers, of some type, as long as there have been vaccines. Which is a nice way of saying that all the effort expended by all those pro-vaccination supporters is about self-aggrandizement, rather than anything altruistic. See.. the thing is, the first major anti-vaxxer movements petered over a century ago once it became very obvious that specific infectious diseases were caused by specific microorganisms and exposure to an attenuated form of the pathogen or its main toxin would confer functional immunity to those diseases.

In other words, the modern anti-vaxxer movements are NOT populated by rubes who reject the idea that pathogens cause infectious diseases or deny that vaccines elicit an immunological response. In fact, I wrote a couple of posts on this topic in the past where I pointed out that the modern anti-vaxxer movements are an inevitable consequence of profit-driven medicine and that the effects of late-capitalism on the medical system have made it increasingly untrustworthy. Sharp eyed readers might have noticed that I used the plural rather than singular form of ‘movement’ in my previous sentences. As you will see, there is a good reason behind using the plural form and it is very relevant to the rest of this series- specifically the part about how persecution of anti-vaxxers will backfire on believers in scientism.

Let us now talk about the real factors at play in this conflict, and let us be honest about how things are in real-life as opposed to how they should or ought to be.

1] Public trust in the medical profession, especially in USA, has been dropping at an increasing rate over past two decades. Regardless of what you want to believe, it is hard to escape the fact that public faith in “credentialed experts” of all types has been steadily going down over past 2-3 decades. And let us be honest about something else- this loss of faith is grounded in very solid reasons. It takes too much effort to keep believing in priests.. I mean”credentialed experts”.. who have made repeatedly been shown to wrong, greedy and incompetent. By now, almost every person in USA has had personal experience or knows somebody directly who has suffered due to dogma, greed or sheer incompetence of physicians who behave as if they are incapable of making mistakes. And the effect of such behavior and attitudes on their overall credibility is cumulative.

How many of you would willingly place your trust in people who have repeatedly displayed their ability to believe and promote bullshit, derive their livelihood via cartelisation of their profession and are generally incapable of accepting their past mistakes? Why, then, would you expect people with skin in the game aka parents to blindly trust any guidelines or recommendations these “credentialed experts” with no skin in the game come up with? And let us be honest about something else.. “revised guidelines and recommendations” during the past 20 years have almost exclusively been used to sell increasingly more expensive drugs and other medical services without a corresponding increase in life-expectancy. And this leads us to the second issue- namely, the risk-benefit ratios for each vaccine.

2] Too many losers.. I mean supporters of scientism.. believe (or pretend to) that all vaccines are wonder drugs with almost no side-effects and almost universal efficacy. The reality, as usual, is more complicated. While there are vaccines with almost 100% efficacy and almost non-existent serious adverse effects (Diphtheria and Tetanus toxoids, oral and injected polio vaccines, Mumps and Rubella component of MMR, Hepatitis A and B vaccines etc), not all vaccines with almost universal efficacy are free of a small risk of serious side effects. Two of most well-known vaccines (Vaccinia-based smallpox vaccine and Rabies Vaccines- even the latest ones) are known to cause serious side-effects in about 1 in 1000 to 10,000 recipients. That is why we stopped vaccinating the general population against Smallpox a few years after it was eradicated in the late-1970s and also why the Rabies vaccine is usually used for post-exposure treatment in humans.

Now you know why only veterinarians, bat cave explorers, people who travel in wild areas of poor countries and people who work with the rabies virus are vaccinated pre-exposure, and everybody else is vaccinated immediately after exposure. This is also why the yellow fever vaccine, which is also very effective, is used so sparingly outside countries and localities where that disease is endemic. Long story short- even extremely effective vaccines can have adverse effects at unacceptable rates in areas where the disease is not prevalent. For example- vaccinating everybody in USA with the smallpox, rabies and yellow fever vaccines would cause more deaths and illness than those diseases cause under current long-established guidelines.

3] Not all vaccines are highly effective. Yearly influenza shots are a very good example of vaccines whose real-life efficacy rarely exceeds 50%. In most years, their efficacy is closer to 30%, and it often dips as low as 10-20%. Did I mention that influenza stains at the start of an epidemic are often not the same as those near the end? Pretending that yearly influenza vaccination protects people from that disease at a higher rate than wearing a magical charm or talisman is scientifically disingenuous. Maybe, someday we will have an efficacious vaccine for all strains of influenza that can infect humans or attenuate the disease. However, as things stand today we don’t have one and it is stupid to keep pretending otherwise.

And then there is the issue of established and efficacious vaccines, which nonetheless, could use some improvement. For example- the cellular pertussis vaccine has pretty good efficacy (85-90%) but is known to make a few children ill enough to require hospital care. The acellular version, while displaying far fewer serious side effects, is a bit less efficacious (60-80%). Clearly, we should try to develop a better pertussis component in the DPT vaccine with more efficacy and fewer side effects. Also, a better system for identifying kids who will react poorly to the cellular version of that vaccine is required. The Measles component of the MMR vaccine provides a pretty high degree of complete protection (over 85%), however about 1 of 10 vaccinated children can still develop a very mild form of the illness if exposed to that virus.

Let us, therefore, not pretend that the Measles competent of MMR is close to 100% effective. The same is true for Chickenpox vaccine- which provides total protection for about 80%, while providing protection against moderate to severe disease to the other 19-20%. Note that I am using numbers and percentages based on standard multiple-dose vaccinations schedules. In the next part, I will go into the efficacy and effectiveness of these and other vaccines from a public health standpoint. As you will see in that part, some vaccines are far more consequential from the public health standpoint than others- which is a fancy way of saying that some are more important than others.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    March 10, 2019 at 11:37 am

    There is actually a parallel in computing with the Anti-Vaxxer movement:
    The “anti-previous-Windows-version” movement.
    With the idea that:
    1.If you want to use a previous version of Windows, you must be wanting to be part of a botnet or virus-spreading network.
    2.There is no reason to use an older version of Windows ever.
    3.Microsoft always knows best and never makes mistakes.

    All 3 of those moronic statements can be debunked, and they exist as part of an economic and mental narrative that “the latest is the best”.

    And yet they moronically can’t explain why people still play chess, use combustion engines, have nukes or write … or why banks still use FORTRAN, COBOL and AS/400 systems. It’s very selective prosecution there.

    It’s basically a hit-job designed to get everyone to conform.

    They also have 0 ideas about how to fix the AI in Homeworld: Remastered … that is complete trash next to the original Homeworld released many years ago – which won’t run on Windows 10.

    The conspiracy reasons are the same: economic advantage, short-termism and a unified snooping platform.

    It’s really a good thing China produces older hardware in quantity too … now one can see the wisdom of IBM telling Intel “you’d better give your blueprints to AMD too, because if we don’t have a second source for our chips – YOU won’t get the contract”.

    • P Ray
      March 13, 2019 at 2:15 am

      Very much lel, looks like Microsoft is backing down and will be providing DirectX12 to Windows 7 (after years of previously saying “this can only run on Windows 10”).
      Seems they want to grab a big slice of the China market, and can only do it in 2 ways:
      1. provide a special version of Windows 10 that China can examine the source code, to verify that it only has restricted spying and telemetry
      2. update Windows 7 so that newer game- and application- software can run on it.

      When the market is big enough but doesn’t comply, Microsoft will change to accommodate the buyers.
      But don’t think they’re any different to Google, Apple or Amazon. When they’re on top, they’ll twist the knife too.

  2. March 10, 2019 at 9:07 pm

    you hindu muffins probably think this is funny…

    yes us WN raw dog it, and if we didn’t let in Roosh V with forged HBD paperwork from
    Steve Sailor (it’s really spelled Sailer) then we wouldn’t have this AIDS problemo…

    But would you really wear a rubber when you were with a cutie pie like Gavin McInnes or Nathan Damigo? I think not, so keep on thinking you are better than me because you like vagina…

  3. Another Commenter
    March 10, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    Even less than 100% effective vaccine can help prevent epidemics.

    Only if the pathogens they are directed against exist in the first place or cause serious illnesses. For example- while vaccines against Hep A and Hep B are very effective,how frequently do you see the former in USA?

    Let’s say an infected person meets 50 other people while contagious.

    My undergrad was in Microbiology..

    Very sketch idea of what I’m trying to say.

    Without vaccine, 3% catch the disease. So one sick person causes 1.5 new cases. Pandemic!

    There is a huge difference between fictitious pathogens and real ones. Tell me how an influenza vaccination with an effectiveness of 30% (on a good day) is going to change the course of an influenza pandemic?

    With vaccine, 1% catch the disease. Now one sick person causes 0.5 new cases. Maybe not an epidemic.

    Newsflash! We usually do not have effective vaccines against the most problematic viral pathogens- largely because they are often ‘new’ in humans.

    Perhaps you should read a bit about non-pathogenic microbes evolve into pathogens, how pathogens adapt to new host species etc.

  4. Jerry
    March 11, 2019 at 2:07 pm

    A few allergic reaction cases is NOT a cause to join the anti-vaxx cult! This is such a faulty reasoning here. Statistically, you are better off being vaccinated for the common diseases than not, and your chances of having a severe reaction is still statistically small. Not being vaccinated puts you at a higher risk as we are seeing in measles breakouts in Washington and San Diego.

    Sure, but let us not pretend that severe allergic and other nasty auto-immune reactions are impossible. They are very uncommon with most commonly used vaccines- but they do occur. Acting like those things are not relevant is how you lose credibility.

    Low statistical risk is irrelevant, if your own child’s future is at risk. Did I mention the general loss of public credibility of medical profession over past two decades? Forcing people to do anything you tell them to is how you get increasing resistance.

    The right way to go about this is to be transparent about the risk-benefit ratio for each human vaccine- and the risk of disease if not vaccinated. For example- the risks of not vaccinating against diseases covered by DPT is pretty severe and the vaccine is pretty safe. The same is true for Polio and MMR vaccines.

    However, telling people that the annual Influenza vaccine is significantly better than placebo is plain bullshit. Also, you have to give people the chance to spread out vaccinations for rare diseases ( at least in North America) such as Hep A.

    • March 11, 2019 at 3:14 pm

      “The right way to go about this is to be transparent about the risk-benefit ratio for each human vaccine-”

      Agreed.

      …Which, points to the crux issue: In an allegedly democratic society, can Mr and Ms Average Adult Citizens be trusted to make informed, rational decisions, especially for their children; or, must the government make those decisions for them? Are individual citizens capable to objectively, critically examine the data and vet “the experts”? Or is only government qualified to do that; and, must “the-government-which-knows-what’s-best-for-everyone” then promote, (even with machiavellian propaganda) or even enforce its conclusions?

      The credibility issue integrates with addressing that crux issue. EVEN IF in theory only government is qualified to examine the data, draw conclusions in the best interests of the citizenry it’s supposedly serving, and then “tell people what’s best for them”, can government be trusted to do so free of self-serving political, business, and philosophical interests and agendas?

  5. lalit
    March 12, 2019 at 10:36 am

    Time for you talk about Andrew Yang and his UBI Scheme, Bro. Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic! Let ‘Er Rip. Let’s hear the Gears in your brain Whirr

  6. Don
    March 13, 2019 at 12:00 am

    What do you think about the service quality and quality in general in the free and government run medical systems of the world compared to the US medical system.Personally, I think private hospitals are massively better. Although not everybody can afford it. That inability of people to afford medical care is not a good argument for welfare medical systems.

  1. June 22, 2019 at 9:46 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: