Why Do Anti-Vaccinationists Believe?
At the end of last week, I wrote an article which was eventually titled "Vaccine Denial = Scientific Illiteracy." The article was posted on Monday and has since received a lot of feedback on either side. Though part of me expected it, another part of me was confused as hell. True, my article contained some bile. It was a reaction to my feeling that the scientific side of the argument was not represented on the Huffington Post and this bothered me a great deal. More, I found the idea of non-scientific thought influencing public policy to be disconcerting, to say the least.
More confusion came when I started actually reading through the comments. I tried to understand the anti-vaccination thought process. From my point of view, vaccines are good things. They keep us from getting a variety of horrible illnesses and make our lives that much easier.
I tried to think through the anti-vaccine point of view, but as a man who thinks in terms of narrative, I had a problem with the story the anti-vaxers were telling. After all, if scientists and doctors knew that vaccines caused autism, wouldn't there be research scientists working furiously to create vaccines which didn't? Market forces would dictate that they not only create the new vaccines, but loudly trumpet their studies that conclusively showed the harmful side effects of the old. They'd instantly corner the market. But this hasn't happened. So I tried to think and I posed the question to myself "Why would this not happen if vaccines really did cause autism?" And the only thing I could come up with was some sort of vast, over-arching global conspiracy. But why? Who would benefit at all from kids having autism? Because it wouldn't really be the drug companies. There are no singular drugs to help kids with autism, most of the help for them comes from therapies, special education classes, and attentive parents. True, many sufferers of autism have other issues and are prescribed anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, drugs for ADHD or anxiety, and a smorgasbord of others, but there aren't any across the board treatments for all kids with autism. As far as I could tell, there were no benefits that would be gained by a drug company creating a vaccine that produced autism in children that they wouldn't get by producing a vaccine that didn't.
The story just didn't work for me. I'll admit, I didn't see the point. So I turned the question around. And I asked myself "What do the people who believe that vaccines cause autism gain for their belief?" And I think I've figured it out.
A friend of mine suspects that its about parents feeling guilt due to passing on autistic genes, but I don't agree. First of all, if they do, they shouldn't. We can't help what's in our genetic code or what we pass on. It's just not how our reproductive systems work. But more, I believe that fear is a far more overriding emotion in the human psyche than guilt. I can't imagine the pain that a parent would suffer, finding out that their child has an ailment that will impact the rest of their life. But I think what must be a worse feeling is knowing that nothing you could have done could have prevented it, and the dread from knowing that you can't stop something bad from happening again. As paradoxical as it may initially seem, I think the belief that autism is caused by vaccines gives anti-vaccinationists a sense of security.
It's an exceedingly human reaction. It's how we react to everything that scares us. For example, 9-11 conspiracy theorists. No matter what flavor of the conspiracy you have, it comes down to it somehow being an inside job. The 9-11 conspiracist is able to believe that someone let these men do what they did, and that our security wasn't compromised by men who just wanted to do us harm, and that therefore they won't be able to do it again.
None of us are completely immune to these fears. That the world is not ours to control, that random bad things can happen to any of us at any time, that perhaps it doesn't matter what we do -- this is a terrifying notion, and I can understand why it could be even worse for a parent who has to watch these random acts of horror to happen to their child.
I don't hate anti-vaccinationists. I don't think that they're right, and I don't want public policy to be influenced by their beliefs, but I honestly have no vitriol for them in my heart. There are reasons why we view the world through the filters we have. Our brains are designed to construct patterns; we're marvelous at it. It's one of the true geniuses of the human brain. But we can sometimes construct patterns when they aren't there, seeing faces in wood grain, for instance -- because evolution has dictated that babies should be able to recognize a face in an instant.
Since I declared myself a skeptic, I have often had to defend my lack of belief. I have come to accept that in many ways, I vigorously deny that which I can't prove because I know that in my youth, I was swept into believing a few rather ridiculous things and I don't want to allow that to happen again. This is why I believe what I believe. Ask yourself, why do you?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
When did anyone receiving a vaccination also receive a list of every chemical in it? The discussion seems to assume all 'vaccines' have the exact same mix of chemicals and the exact same (half-dead) viruses. Wouldn't you want to know exactly what is in something that's about to be injected into your bloodstream? I would. Try getting that information from the prescribing MD next time you're being persuaded that a vaccination would be prudent for you or your children. Oh, but ever mind, trust us - we're medical professionals and therefore would only do what [we've been told] is beneficial for you.
It is obviously a fallacy to suppose that pharmaceutical companies and governments are always benign and never have anything to cover up, or position to protect legally - or a reputation. What - in fact - you would expect if anything did go wrong is ruthless denial - and ruthless denial would inevitably stand in the way of progress, and of making anything safer. The position is particularly problematic because the children were not ill in the first place, so you would not exactly be queuing up to admit you were the cause.
But, in fact, the system is built on fundamental bad faith. If anything does go wrong it is up to the parents to prove it, while the medical profession for the most part do nothing or obstruct, or in the case of the likes of Dr Dickerman jeer. What is signicant about the recent Banks and Poling cases, is not necessarily that they were medically highly unusual - for which there is no evidence - but they benefitted from unusual levels of medical concern when things started to go wrong.
Dr Dickerman's strategy is the old one of making out anyone who disagrees with you is mad, and it is very unpleasant behaviour.
I'm sure Dickerman would be thrilled to see you've elevated him to doctor. He's not one, though, just a citizen exercising his right to free speech.
I stand corrected.
That's the problem with the case against vaccines: the facts used to argue against are not accurate. The mercury in vaccines was in the form of a preservative called thimerasol. The problem is that that the use of that ingredient was discontinued in 2001. For the sole purpose of being extra cautious! And still the anti-vacci
If the mercury were the problem then autism rates should have been declining for at least the last 4-5 years. But they continue to rise. It's almost as though the medical profession was becoming more aware of autism and was therefore able to make the diagnosis in more cases based on their growing understanding of it.
Hmmm.
There is fear and guilt on both sides of this argument.
Do you think a doctor would admit it if he made a mistake, probablly not because he would get sued and his malpractice insurance would go up. Have you ever had a doctor tell you he made a mistake.
The vaccine companies are not looking to make a profit from autistic children they are trying to cover up mistakes they have made so it does not cost them money. If the vaccines were working why are they trying to improve them.
I am not a scientist or doctor but my common sense tells me that injecting any kind of mercury in any amount iinto a baby is just not right.
Doctors make mistakes. And they are trained to avoid law suits by full disclosure. Full disclosure is an overarching tenet of the practice of medicine.
Jacob's logic missed a step when he assumed this "conspiracy" is aimed at causing autism.
The agencies and companies involved don't want adverse reactions to occur but they believe them to be acceptable risks. Very Machiavlellian.
Jacob didn't assume that at all. He merely posed that concept as a possibility and then showed how it was not logical. It was just a way of getting to his point about why it is that so many people believe vaccines cause autism.
As for "acceptable risks", by far the greatest risk is from the diseases. Those who refuse to vaccinate are the ones who are engaging in undue risk. They are the ones who think that polio, measles, etc. are "acceptable risks", and they are doing it for no more reason that to calm their fears.
Science has become a religion for some people. Full of preachers and dogma.
Maybe that is because "some people" find science to be superior to religion. Those aren't preachers--they are professors. That isn't dogma--it's fact.
Are you trying to say the entire scientific field is free of dogma? If so, I disagree.
Jacob, can you give one good reason to believe anything that issues forth from a federal government agency?
Well then, Zizyphus, can you give one good reason to believe anything?
It is also true that big pharma makes a lot of money off of these innoculations andgetting these shots ensures repeated trips to doctors. I think a lot of this is distrust of Big Phama. They are the bad guys and in it only to make money, or at least that's the thinking. Remember Vioxx.
When we were kids we all had chicken pox and measles and got through them. The ones I worry about about tetanus and polio. My granddaughter who is eight has not had innoculations. She did get a mild case of chicken pox when she was four, otherwise she's been very healthy.
What the blogger forgets to say and what all pro-vaccine people forget as well, is that you DO NOT NEED TO FIX SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN.
That whole idea that something needs fixing that is not broken at all, is the insanity of vaccination. Whether you believe or don't believe that vaccines cause autism is besides the point. It is all for profit and not for protection, because it is not broken and thus needs no fixing.
Moreover, all pharmaceutical drugs have "side effects" and to deny that is insane. The entire pharmacopoeia is proof of the assertion. Some of these "side effects" are autism - which is not genetic, btw. The "genetic connection" has not been proven at all and is as lame an assertion as the claim that mercury alone is responsible for autism. There is neot enough data available for either assertion, so the blogger is disingenuous and merely shifts the blame back to the parents - shilling for Big Pharma. I said it before and say it again - how much does he get payed for his "article" that does not address any of the truly scientific studies done on autism and the vaccine connection?
Wow, where to start.
First, these diseases injure, sometime permanently, the human body. That is "broken" by any definition of the word. Plenty of children died from measles, and some still do. Ditto for chicken pox, whooping cough, etc. It requires tremendous denial to believe that vaccines do not prevent serious suffering and death. Also required is ingoring mountains of evidence while accepting unsupported claims.
No honest person claims that vaccines do not have side effects. The CDC
Your claims that autism is a side effect of vaccine and also not genetic is absolute hogwash. They have been repeatedly debunked ad nauseum and are backed up by extensive scientific data (as well as simple common sense).
You talk about getting payed by "Big Pharma". First of all, it is an ad hominem attack to suggest that without any proof. Second, you forget that virtually all of those arguing against vaccines have a serious financial stake in the debate. There are serious profits from books, salaries, speaking fees, "therapies", etc. to be had. Some researchers have even been shown to have had undisclosed financial conflicts, which is highly unethical. If possible financial motive were proof of lying, then the entire argument against vaccines would go up in smoke.
The TRULY scientific, peer reviewed studies have consistently found no connection between vaccines and autism.
Wrong, many were disfigured fo life with the poz scars. Many an unknown case of measles infected a pregnat woman fetus horribly. Many died.
As for innoculated grandaughter - in the infectious state before being diagnosed how many others may she have infected who did not do so well. Do you not know that the contagion occurs prior to the symptoms showing in an infected person.
Polio, this used to be a debilitating epidemic. It isn't now. And as to tetanus, Ramus you really ought to do some research into these subjects. You don't seem to be aware of the true horrors involved.
Oh yes, when your daughte is a pregnant women I pray she doesn't inadvertantly come in contact with another child who is not innoculated with the measles vaccine. Pray for that.
You cannot get measles (and I believe you mean German measles or rubella) from an unvaccinated child. You can only get it from someone who has the German measles. Unvaccinated children do not walk around carrying the disease as a matter of course. THey must be exposed to it and contract it.
perfect reason not to trust the government to protect our health found right in Huffpo today
Scientists Find Rocket Fuel Chemical In Infant Formula
How many children have been affected before this was discovered?How many other chemicals do we not even have the technological capacity to detect.?
Do not expect the government t protect your children. You yourself must protect them by hewing to a regime as natural as possible. Don't allow the error to occur first then be rectified. By then it is too late!
Execellent example:
First of all, the CDC was actually involved in the study. This is the case of the government trying to protect children and monitor possible health hazards. The system worked.
Second, the article is another case of scaremonger reporting (hence the reference to rocket fuel). The chemical in question is found in nature and the article does eventually admit that there are no known health problems associated with the chemical. It isn't something we want in infant formula, but it is far from the health hazard it is made out to be.
Your advice is good, never let anyone do your job in protecting your children. But in many ways you are helpless and need your government to have laws that govern your food, water, air, etc. If they can do more it's up to us to make them do so, to have them do less is a disaster of biblical proportions.
Check back a couple of hundred years and see how it could be.
There is no point in further elaborating on the belief that supposedly all the mercury is gone. Fact is pharmaceutical companies take calculated risks. That happens in all manufacturing businesses. As long as there is no recall of a substance, it is not likely to be removed. It's way too expensive. It is easy for companies to state something has been removed. Actually doing it is an entirely different matter. I shall believe that all the mercury is gone from vaccines when investigators are sent out to check what the vaccines contain. I wonder how many spot-checks have been made. My guess is zero. There is not enough willingness to regulate.
Another way of looking at this matter is the following. If the FDA or other oversight agencies were to put out a recall notice, it would automatically alert lawyers to the fact that there has been and actually is a problem. Lawsuits would start right away. That's most likely why there never was and never would be a recall.
Thank you for your post. I'd like to add when a manufacturer becomes aware of a "hot lot," that is, a lot of vaccines that are causing an usually high amount of adverse reactions and deaths, nothing is ever done about that, either. The FDA requests a voluntary recall of that lot, but no hot lot has ever been recalled.
When the vaccine makers made a "hot batch" they would spread it out amongst the doses so that the cause of the resulting problems couldn't be pinpointed.
Nobody (at least nobody who knows what they are talking about) is claiming that ALL the mercury is gone. However, currently only a couple of the flu vaccines still use it in the previous amounts. There are also miniscule trace amounts in a couple of other vaccines. This information is easily found by searching on thimerosal at the CDC website. Here is a table from the FDA that shows it quite nicely http://www
There is no recall because there has been no confirmed risk found. The reccomendation was made to remove thimerosal where possible out of an abundance of caution and because it could be done without endangering public health.
Regarding the reported levels of thimerosal in vaccines produced, it would be highly illegal for a company to misrepresent what is in a vaccine. It would also be highly stupid since these companies had to go through the approval process to release thimerosal free vaccines anyway.
As for spot-checks, they have occured. One example showed that spot checks were done in 2001 and 2002, and that they indicated the number of thimerosal containing vaccines remaining on the shelf had dropped to 1.9%.
http://www
"Regarding the reported levels of thimerosal in vaccines produced, it would be highly illegal for a company to misrepresent what is in a vaccine."
just like Big Tobacco never told us what thye put in tobacco, Big Pharma does not tell you what is in the vaccines. The FDA is peopled with ex-Pharma employees, who will endorse what Big Pharma wants them to endorse.
Here is another report that should make you think:
Baxter flu vaccines contaminated with H5N1 (the human form of avian flu) were received by labs in the Czech Republic, Germany and Slovenia. Initially, Baxter refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1, invoking “trade secrets.” After increased pressure, they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident.
Excuse me? "TRADE SECRETS"??? Those same trade secrets are kept from parents and health professionals, who are ignorant of the contents of vaccines, apart from that which Big Pharam reveals voluntarily.
Jacob,
I wish that I had a thousand words for this.
To address your primary topic, I think you are partially correct. Fear is a big motivator. However, it goes deeper than that. Humans, as you state, are hard wired to see patterns. I would also offer that they are hard wired as problem solvers. When humans are addressed with a problem there is a basic procedure that follows:
1. Describe why
2. Place blame
3. Develop and implement a solution
This is almost universal. If a child dies, then we try to explain why (example: choke on a toy). From the why comes blame (faulty toy). From blame comes the solution (sue toy manufacturer). The outcome of this does not have to be logical in order to satisfy people, but the three steps must be followed. It seems to me that most of the problems come from shortcutting step 1.
Like you state, fear is a factor in this, but so are anger and denial. All of it comes down to a desire to DO something. Humans are born to DO something. Why didn’t someone DO something about 9/11? Why didn’t the government DO something about Hurricane Katrina? We need to DO something about autism. There is also the underlying belief that there is a reason for everything that happens.
Whether all of this is useful is open for debate. I personally think that understanding why others believe what they do is useful in resolving disagreements
Let me clarify my position on vaccination. I am not advocating getting rid of vaccination programs. There are people who believe in vaccination, and they have a right to their shots. I am, however, in favor of personal liberty. The decision of whether or not to vaccinate is best kept between a doctor and a patient, or the patient's parents. No one, not the government, not a vaccine apologist, no one should have the right to make that decision for anyone else. I am in favor of getting rid of the federally mandated vaccination schedule, nothing more, nothing less.
If only......
I agree completely, but Big Pharam does not like the idea. They pay a lot of money to politicians to implement compulsion. That is the real problem.
I know. I realize my position is unrealistic in that it's unlikely to become popular enough to be implemented in my lifetime, but it's still my position.
It may take a century or two, but I have no doubt the day will come when everyone will reject vaccination theory and look back on the whole thing with the same amusement we do now at trepaning, which was the practice of drilling holes in a patient's head to allow the evil spirits to escape.
The problem isn't really your position, it is that you base everything on so much incorrect information. You also repeat the same misinformed information over and over, thereby spreading the ignorance.
No person has the right to place another person, even their own child, at undue risk when the proof of that risk is clear. The perfect example is seatbelt laws. Just because there are a few people that argue about the unlikely possibility of getting trapped in a burning car does not change the clear risk of not wearing the seatbelt, and it does not change the law.
The exact same is true for vaccines. You personally choose to believe false information and unsupported claims in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. That does not change the fact that vaccines have been repeatedly shown to reduce the risk of injury and death by several orders of magnitude. It also doesn't change the fact that any risk of adverse effect is far outweighed by the risk of the disease.
The spreading of disinformation, while constitutionally protected, is a serious detriment to the health of others. There have already been outbreaks tied directly to declining vaccination rates. If the fraudulent information continues to lower vaccination rates, then larger and more deadly outbreaks are likely. It is simple statistics.
A public health decision such as this cannot be based on rumor and innuendo. Barring significant scientific proof to the contrary, the time and research tested schedule should stay in place.
There is no evidence whatsoever unvaccinated children pose a threat to vaccinated ones.
And your liberty to get measels, whooping cough, chicken pox, polio, - all communicable diseases - is a sad situation for all those who believe, like you. those who are vaccinated will not be effected - those with your liberty concerns will be. Does that ever make sense?
I had chicken pox, mumps and rubella as a child. It didn't kill me.
Okay here's some examples of WHY we have no reason to trust our government OR what the scientific community says:
Global warming, we hear all sorts of contradictory statements AND we are told that under Bush studies were changed or not released. HOW do I know ANYTHING is true?
Bush lied us into war. Lyndon Johnson lied us into war-- ergo WHY wouldn't I believe the 9/11 conspiracy?
The food pyramid shows we should eat more CARBS than anything else!!! EVERYBODY knows CARBS make you fat.
After 9/11 our government came up with the COLOR code to keep us safe. What a joke and remember the fabulous recommendation about Duct Tape??? That's right up there with "duck and cover" to protect us from radiation.
The government watch dogs failed to see what the banks and financial institutions were doing was going to get us in this mess.
Even though Bernie Madoff was brought to the government's attention they still didn't catch him!!!
Sure I trust my government and what "experts" say. Sure I do.
I have never heard anybody describe themselves as an "anti-vacc
It is a term designed to demonize and born out of fear. The same fear that causes "pro life" people to brand and demonize people they disagree with as "pro abortion." Fear of the people who are concerned and looking for answers as to what happened to their child.
I am sure you realize that a constructive dialogue does not begin with demonization. Knowing that is a simple demonstration that the forces you represent do not want a constructive dialogue about concern.
For decades established peer reviewed scientific opinion fixed the blame for autism on the "emotional frigidity" of the parents.
Instead of attempting to psycho analyze concerned parents of children with autism I would strongly suggest that the medical industry needs to examine how the public's trust of the medical establishment has been severely eroded by the millions upon millions of dollars of lobbying and political donation (and other influence peddling); the repeated examples of conflicts of interest that would be laughed out of any other area of academia; the repeated examples of representatives of the industry hauled up to capital hill ....
Patronizing the parents of disabled children will not lead you to a solution.
Peer reviewed scientific opinion didn't say autism was caused by refrigerator mothers. Essentially one loud mouthed person, Bruno Bettelheim, did. He had a school that treated children he said had autism, he wrote a popular book on his success (manufactured) with treating them, and he went on talk shows where he propounded his views (sort of like Jenny McCarthy is doing, with her books and her talk show circuit). He wasn't an expert, he didn't publish peer reviewed studies, and he almost singlehandedly controlled the popular perception of autism in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Your contention is like arguing that Freud was peer reviewed scientific opinion.
We've come a long way in the psychological field towards science, but we didn't start there. Peer reviewed, scientific opinion did not dominate the field, and like it or not, that is where the study of autism resides: in the psychological domain. Discussion of what autism was thirty and forty years ago and what we know about it now are vastly different.
Of course, from the 40s through the 70s, there weren't many with autism, because autism wasn't postulated until the 40s. It didn't even make into the DSM until 1980 when it was called infantile autism. In 1987, it was renamed autistic disorder. The DSM-IV saw further revisions. You can bet that it will be defined differently when the DSM-V comes out.
This emphasis on to vaccinate or not to is a red herring when it comes to autism research.
"one loud mouthed person"
Kanner himself said in 1949 "a general lack of maternal warmth" .. and in Time Magazine 1960 Kanner again .. parents of autistic children "just happening to defrost enough to produce a child" we could also cite the writings of Silvano Arieti, Margaret Mahler
"one book"
Bettelheim did write 16 books and a large number articles in various publications .. I don't think I used the word "studies" ..
on doing a bit more footwork it does seem that Rimland's articles against the theory started earlier than I thought .. but I cannot find other voices railing against this hypothesis in the 60s ... maybe you can direct them to me ..
According to a 2007 article in the Guardian it still has some support in parts of Europe and is still the prevalent belief in South Korea. .. and from personal anecdote I can tell that on our first trip of concern with our non verbal two year old to our pediatrician in Missouri in the early 1990s .. we were told "you have to talk to them you know" ..
"he had a school" .. the Orthogenic School at the University of Chicago ..... not some corner crackpot lounge disavowed by academia as you try to paint it ..
"... what we know about it now are vastly different. " not that there has not been progress in certain areas but I would point out that .. It is still defined purely on a
Constructive dialogue will at least have a fighting chance when anti-vaccine activists stop saying things such as "for decades established peer reviewed scientific opinion fixed the blame for autism on the "emotional frigidity" of the parents." When we can agree on facts, then we can start to agree on the larger issues.
calamityjohn wrote: "I have never heard anybody describe themselves as an "anti-vacc
Try googling
When You Call Merck: Mention This... Rubella Vaccine Death.
The first hit will be an article on the notorious, heavily censored blog "AgeOfAutism". In the comments of this post you will find two people openly admitting that they are anti-vaccine.
Jacob,
I know a perfect example of how impossible it is to convince the true believers that vaccines don't cause autism. There's a very prominent pro-disease (anti-vax) advocate with the initials K. S. who has three daughters with autism. She vaccinated the first two, and the third was totally unvaccinated. Yet this third daughter still has autism. You might think that she would have changed her mind at that point. But no, she still believes autism is caused by vaccines.
Any rational person would see that her family is a living, breathing data point that indicates that autism is genetic. But, according to her twisted logic, somehow her family demonstrates that autism is caused by vaccines. Do you think any logical argument is ever going to convince this person?
How do you explain the 60% concordance rate of autism among identical or monozygotic twins? "Pro disease" .. do you fear people who disagree with you that much?
How does your concordance rate validate the vaccine-autism myth?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
