Anti- vaxxers, what are they?

Agreed that Autism is definitely the lesser evil compared to Polio. Then again, there is something wrong if someone thinks that they have to choose between the two, because there shouldn't.
 
Solace said:
you're really missing the real issue. these people are really just ableist and classist, rather than stupid. they believe that their children are above routine public health measures because they feel that the unsubstantiated by science (but publicized and supported by enough people) claim that vaccines are linked to the development of autism is the correct one.

they're misguided by poorly researched, anti-scientific claims that their children will develop autism because of vaccinations that have nearly eradicated childhood illnesses that used to kill or disable children in the past. they also are fed the ableist bullshit from organizations like autism speaks that autism is something that should or can be "cured" and therefore believe that autism is worse than measles/mumps/polio/etc.

ultimately the issue isn't that these people are stupid, but that they're buying into a largely accepted belief (at least in the united states, though i'm sure the dichotomy between east and west thought regarding autism isn't as large as some may think) that autism is in fact worse than "rare" diseases. This of course ignores the fact that these diseases are perceived as rare because of the rise of vaccinations.
Click to expand...

to add on to the first paragraph: I think there are at least two distinct populations of anti-vaccination parents. but reducing the debate to one about autism loses explanatory power for an interesting population -- some of the highest school exemption rates in the u.s. are in extremely affluent districts in california.

the obvious population has already been discussed to death (those who worship jenny mccarthy).

the second population is comprised of educated and intelligent classists. sure, a fear of autism might be able to explain their behavior. but it's not necessary. game theoretically (and this is hardly game theory but who can resist the opportunity to use a buzzword on smogon) it can make sense for someone who is classist not to vaccinate their child. assume the case where everyone else vaccinates their kid. this is a pretty safe assumption because poor people are sheep and you are the enlightened 99.9%. your child gets herd immunity and is safe. if you still vaccinate your child, there's a scientifically justified chance of freak complications. so you don't. the obvious answer to this argument is that it's sort of like prisoner's dilemma -- a logical parent should take into account the possibility of herd immunity breakdown and might vaccinate their child anyways. but vaccinations have been seen in a very positive light for all but the last several years, so it might not've been crazy to think that there was no way that their protections would break down. there's an apocryphal story of a pediatrician who did not vaccinate her children for certain diseases because she knew that everyone else was vaccinating their children, so it would be pointless for her to do so.

anyways, this still makes you a huge asshole (although: at the time of their decisions, it was merely freeloading rather than parasitism -- so perhaps this moral point is debatable). from the point of view of those who don't vaccinate, I imagine it's like tax evasion. you think you're superior to the common people so you don't need to make the same sacrifices as them, while you still take advantage of public goods; plus, you're greedy and you don't want to give up X to get Y (I assume this is what tax evaders think). well, it's like tax evasion, except the stakes are death. so in that sense it's like drunken driving, because your shitty decision may endanger yourself, but it also significantly endangers others. and not just others who are morally culpable like you, but those who are "innocent" and did not vaccinate their children due to allergies or past complications. the social contract of vaccination includes the protection of those who are not able to protect themselves.
 
Sigh... that's why in Hong Kong, we have a law that forbids celebs to spread false information. (a fine)
Celebs in Hong Kong can't state or spread any scientific facts without properly proved by experts.
And that's why they rarely talk about facts and focus more on opinions.

It's horrible to see that messed up organizations like Autism Speaks run so rampant in USA. I wonder if there's anything we can do about it?

I wonder if Wrong Planet can organize a thing to go against it. (Such as sue them for being ableists)

Yeti said:
The sheer audacity it takes to say "I would rather the chance my child dies or contracts a serious disease than gets autism" is in-freakin-credible. I would like to see an anti-vax moron go up to an autistic person and tell them to their face they'd rather their kid wind up dead than like them. If they are too irresponsible or unable to raise a child that's not 'mentally normal' they are too irresponsible to be in a position to have a child at ALL. What if the kid has a physical issue like paralysis?
.
Click to expand...
Can you sue that person in the USA? This is very important.
 
djanxo unchained said:
(Still, I'd rather my kids, if any, to have autism than die.)
Click to expand...

It's probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread here, but that is a terrible logical fallacy, since not taking vaccines is not equatable to dying or catching a terrible disease.

Group immunity means the risk of actually catching one of the vaccinated diseases incredibly slim in a first world country where the majority are vaccinating. The odds you perceive of getting autism from vaccines versus the odds of catching a disease is what will shape your opinion on the matter. Also keep in mind that children get vaccinated for a LOT MORE than a handful of deadly diseases, and that the schedule for vaccination is far more aggressive than what existed in previous generations (even compared to parents now in their early 20's).

I think most informed people will come to the conclusion:

Relation/causation between vaccinations and diseases such as autism are based on very unreliable studies at best so far, where as globalization and heavy flight habits make societies ever more potentially exposed to the spread of disease. However, it would likely be wise to have more studies on the effects of undergoing a heavy schedule of 20-30 vaccinations in the first 2-3 years of life (since there well could be many other effects we're not yet aware of).
 
Chou Toshio said:
Relation/causation between vaccinations and diseases such as autism are based on very unreliable studies at best so far, where as globalization and heavy flight habits make societies ever more potentially exposed to the spread of disease. However, it would likely be wise to have more studies on the effects of undergoing a heavy schedule of 20-30 vaccinations in the first 2-3 years of life (since there well could be many other effects we're not yet aware of).
Click to expand...

That's the vaccination schedule in the US? 20-30 vaccinations in the first 3 years? I mean, I'm pretty sure every country has it's own vaccination schedule depending on weather, climatic conditions and such, but Argentina isn't so different from the US and we get those 20-30 vaccines in a 6 year span (So you are fully vaccinated by the time you enter primary school).

Anyways, I thought anti-vaxxers were a 9gag joke. Apparently they actually exist.

Most of my google searchs bring up the same debate: the medical groups versus the parents. The scientific, objective, study based medical groups versus the highly emotional, sensitive, irrational parents. Hm.
 
Chou Toshio said:
It's probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread here, but that is a terrible logical fallacy, since not taking vaccines is not equatable to dying or catching a terrible disease.

Group immunity means the risk of actually catching one of the vaccinated diseases incredibly slim in a first world country where the majority are vaccinating. The odds you perceive of getting autism from vaccines versus the odds of catching a disease is what will shape your opinion on the matter. Also keep in mind that children get vaccinated for a LOT MORE than a handful of deadly diseases, and that the schedule for vaccination is far more aggressive than what existed in previous generations (even compared to parents now in their early 20's).

I think most informed people will come to the conclusion:

Relation/causation between vaccinations and diseases such as autism are based on very unreliable studies at best so far, where as globalization and heavy flight habits make societies ever more potentially exposed to the spread of disease. However, it would likely be wise to have more studies on the effects of undergoing a heavy schedule of 20-30 vaccinations in the first 2-3 years of life (since there well could be many other effects we're not yet aware of).
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I think it has to do with worst scenario, rather than being a fallacy.
You see, obviously at least most vaccinated population are not autistic.
 
Chou Toshio said:
It's probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread here, but that is a terrible logical fallacy, since not taking vaccines is not equatable to dying or catching a terrible disease.
Click to expand...
In most cases I've seen, the people saying they'd rather their kid get autism than die are arguing against the position that no one should vaccinate, period. In this case, group immunity isn't a factor because the position they're arguing against is saying, let's stop vaccinating everyone.

I'm not sure how prevalent that position is in the anti- camp but it really seems like it's nearly all of them. I could be wrong.
 
djanxo unchained said:
I don't think so. I think it has to do with worst scenario, rather than being a fallacy.
You see, obviously at least most vaccinated population are not autistic.
Click to expand...

How often in your life do you make important decisions only based on "the worst case scenario." If it's near all, I'd have to say you're an idiot. If that's how you make decisions for your kids, also ridiculous.

Worst case scenario is something to be considered in risk analysis, but it's laughable to compare opposing worst case scenarios and call it a day when it comes to decision making.

Let's say my kid has an ear condition, with a 40% chance he'll lose all hearing without surgery. There's a relatively safe surgery to fix it with an 80% chance of success. There's also a 1% chance that the Anesthesia goes wrong and he never wakes up again. Do you do the surgery? It's better to be deaf and alive than in a coma/dead right? (no, you do the surgery-- duh)

The point is that the probabilities matter-- and while the anti-vaxxers opinions are largely baseless, their [unfounded] perception of odds along with personal perception of the problems with autism (which are real, and they are entitled to their opinion-- don't be an ass) could easily lead them to perceive the problem very differently.

When it comes to the life and well being of a single child, you can't practice medicine effectively without being able to address the human/emotional questions.

Knots said:
In most cases I've seen, the people saying they'd rather their kid get autism than die are arguing against the position that no one should vaccinate, period. In this case, group immunity isn't a factor because the position they're arguing against is saying, let's stop vaccinating everyone.

I'm not sure how prevalent that position is in the anti- camp but it really seems like it's nearly all of them. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

That's not the case here-- nor would there be any point in making that case. djanxo is arguing about an instance of his 1, own kid-- from which standpoint his over simplification is extremely flawed.
 
If you dont understand how subjects might have obligations to future (or even just 'present other') life that are prior to their game-theoretical self-interest are you an evolutionary psychologist, an idiot, or a sociopath? The world view of an anti-vaccer is literally pathological, so what sort of notion of rationality is their world view predicated on?

Perhaps a notion of rationality predicated on actively repressing empathy and community directed reasoning, which makes their pre-occupation with autism all the more ironic, as autism is popularly characterized as an empathy deficient disorder (see Simon Baron Cohen), which is a precise description of the pathology they exhibit in their notion of what it means to act rationally.

Selfishness is a disease that must go before so many of the others.
 
Last edited:
Myzozoa said:
If you dont understand how subjects might have obligations to future (or even just 'present other') life that are prior to their game-theoretical self-interest are you an evolutionary psychologist, an idiot, or a sociopath? The world view of an anti-vaccer is literally pathological, so what sort of notion of rationality is their world view predicated on?

Perhaps a notion of rationality predicated on actively repressing empathy and community directed reasoning, which makes their pre-occupation with autism all the more ironic, as autism is popularly characterized as an empathy deficient disorder (see Simon Baron Cohen), which is a precise description of the pathology they exhibit in their notion of what it means to act rationally.

Selfishness is a disease that must go before so many of the others.
Click to expand...

Selfishness is what has driven life to live, and self-interest is what will continue to shape humanity's future-- you can simply choose to see it in a good light or bad. You can choose to see people for the good that they are, or you can choose to live your life hating the world.

Of course it's great if people can work towards a better world, and we are cooperative by nature as well. But if you think self-interest is a fault, or that I could see it as evil (or a disease), than you'd be sadly mistaken.

Human nature won't change-- but that's no reason not to love people.
 
Last edited:
Chou Toshio said:
Selfishness is what has driven life to live, and self-interest is what will continue to shape humanity's future-- you can simply choose to see it in a good light or bad. You can choose to see people for the good that they are, or you can choose to live your life hating the world.

Of course it's great if people can work towards a better world, and we are cooperative by nature as well. But if you think self-interest is a fault, or that I could see it as evil (or a disease), than you'd be sadly mistaken.

Human nature won't change-- but that's no reason not to love people.
Click to expand...
I highly recommend you read The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod. Cooperation and self-interest are not diametrically opposed. Cooperation has, for most of human history, actually been the most self-interested way a person could act.
 
Parents brought their kid who had measles to disney land, and like ~150 kids with retarded parents who didn't vaccinate them got it. This fucking pisses me off.


http://www.livescience.com/50147-disneyland-measles-outbreak-linked-to-low-vaccination-rates.html
 
I'm really sad when I learnt that anti-vaxxing has actually reached (and spread) in Hong Kong.
The incident was caused when a celebrity's private chat (with anti-vaxxing content) was leaked to the general public.
The private chat went viral, and people started supporting the celebrity by spewing anti-vax comments.

Prior to this incident, very few people in Hong Kong know much about anti-vaxxing, let alone supporting anti-vaxxing.
 
I'm an uneducated american. There are 4 (legitimate!!! those things like autism are stupid) reasons why you shouldn't get vaccinated, and they have to all be present in order for it to be an option.
1. You are deathly afraid of needles. Not a little bit afraid, you would legitimately rather get horribly sick than get stuck in the arm.
2. You are selfish enough to not care if others die as a consequence of your actions.
3. You firmly believe that diseases are necessary population control.
4. You understand, and are willing to take, the risk of contracting these diseases that until recently were nearly eradicated.

So I personally could understand someone's decision to not get vaccinated but these aren't usually the reasons they cite, turning to pseudoscience to instill fearmongering
 
1. get them done under a general anaesthetic approved for paediatric usage.
2. Asshole
3. Hello Hobbes.
4. Sure, only if you are willing to completelt sequester yourself from society, especially everytime you exhibit any symptom related to contagious diseases. Also Mill's Harm Principle (which most democracies abide by) should discount such reasoning.
 
5. yr a person of color (predominately black/native) that is wary of the medical industrial complex & how it has historically and continually harmed ur body and u are reckoning with intergenerational trauma that makes u cautious of certain vaccines

it always makes me skiddish when Woke White peeps are super hypercritical of ppl who aren't pro-vaccine without allowing for communities of color space to unpack their own anxieties abt a system that has failed and exploited them. yes, vaccines are good for humanity!! but we need to be mindful of reasons why some ppl would be turned off by them.

fuck white anti-vaxxers tho

and we could also talk abt what the constant talk abt anti-vaxxing means in regards to agnotology and how it obfuscates certain conversations to promote a capitalist system
 
Last edited:
Except the vast majority of anti-vaxxers are white and wealthy, because again, vaccines are mandated for public school entry and you don't exactly see very many black/native people being able to afford sending their kids somewhere other than public school.

(note, in fact, black children are more likely to be under-vaccinated, presumably due to socioeconomic factors i.e., lack of access to medical professionals or time/money to go see them. However, for the truly, wholly unvaccinated children, which is the main evidence for the "mistrust of medicine and the government" argument, since why get some but not others..., white and wealthy predominates.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867122

States with the highest rates of lack of vaccination also tend to be pretty white (Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, California, Illinois), or are known for having large white, wealthy enclaves. Of course this is just more suggestive public health evidence as compared to direct experimental evidence, but it backs up the previously mentioned experimental evidence on a wider scale.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a3.htm?s_cid=mm6230a3_w
 
I thought this thread was about a bunch of idiots who think that having a higher risk of getting polio is a good thing? Since when did this topic become about race? No matter the ethnicity, morons are always gonna be morons. No need to over politicize things so much.
 
dice said:
5. yr a person of color (predominately black/native) that is wary of the medical industrial complex & how it has historically and continually harmed ur body and u are reckoning with intergenerational trauma that makes u cautious of certain vaccines

it always makes me skiddish when Woke White peeps are super hypercritical of ppl who aren't pro-vaccine without allowing for communities of color space to unpack their own anxieties abt a system that has failed and exploited them. yes, vaccines are good for humanity!! but we need to be mindful of reasons why some ppl would be turned off by them.

fuck white anti-vaxxers tho
Click to expand...
Surely this is the same sort of Woke White philosophy being applied here, except in this case it's out of some sort of misguided sense of pity. The implication that somehow it's okay justification because they're wary of modern medicine as long as they're a poor little Coloured Person (and then the continued "fuck white anti-vaxxers", because only people of colour are allowed to be wary of modern medicine) not only ignores this stance's relation to wealth, but also the general ignorance that this stance comes from.

Saying that somehow you should be any less critical of people justifying this sort of thing because of "intergenerational trauma" which is almost never going to be an excuse people make seems like some sort of absurd pandering to make sure you know that it's okay when unfortunate people of colour do it because they just don't know better, poor them.

I don't know if you're black or white or whatever you are but you're sounding like the typical white saviour speaking on behalf of the poor, stupid Coloured Man who would not survive without you. There is still accountability that has to be held when people endanger their children's lives regardless of where these views come from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top