Dogma, again

The more I surf these here intertubes, the more I realize how irrational we are. Our ability to cling to ideas that deserve to be flogged, ridiculed and trashed is astonishing. Dogma leads us to more stupidity.



The Omnibus Autism Vaccine ruling clearly stated that no scientific evidence was presented that demonstrates a causal link between vaccinations, specifically MMR, and autism. None. Yet anti-vax nutters are getting a forum in the Huffington Post, claiming that there is a link, and either it hasn't yet been proved, or the courts have proved it so there. Of course, scientific fact is not something a court can create, but never mind that - it's inconvenient and doesn't fit the mindset of those convinced of their argument. It also doesn't fit the court rulings they claim are evidence of a link - they are applying dogma to distort, lie and twist the facts to promote their dangerous viewpoint.



I'm assuming a few things about people who agree with anti-vax arguments.



1. They have no understanding of relative risk. Vaccines do, in rare instances, cause severe and lasting harm. The high fever following the old pertussis vaccine brain damaged more than a few kids. Fewer than pertussis, but how awful for those parents. Compensation varies by country. If your child is injured by a vaccine, you should be compensated. It is really sad. But if your child is injured by an illness, there is no compensation. And those odds are much, much higher, especially if your child is not vaccinated and is exposed to other unvaccinated children regularly. The odds of brain damage from measels is about 1 in 1000, from what I've read. From measles vaccine, about 1 in 1 million or less, again, according to what I've read. That means the vaccine is 1000 times less likely to injure your child than the illness. If measles was rare and hard to catch, then it might not make sense to risk that injury, but it is neither rare nor difficult to catch - just look at what's happening in England thanks to imbeciles pushing the gullible to refuse to protect their children.

2. They don't know how vaccines work. Vaccines trigger an immune response in the host that mimics the response the disease causes. Your immune system remembers the trigger, and can quickly attack the disease if exposed. This doesn't mean vaccination guarantees you won't get sick. But your system will likely respond much more quickly, and you won't get as sick. Look up cowpox and smallpox, that's how vaccination started. To state that small babies shouldn't receive a vaccine until their immune systems are more robust is to ignore that a disease won't wait, and that it's better to stimulate with a very well tested vaccination than with a potentially highly lethal illness.

3. They have no clue how prevalent and damaging the illnesses are. Diptheria killed so many. Polio killed and crippled thousands, if not millions. Tetanus - OUCH. Whooping cough is a horrible illness, my neighbour's vaccinated kids had it, and were sick for a month with a mild case - it can last much longer and result in brain damage due to lack of oxygen in the unvaccinated. It's milder in adults, because our airways are bigger.

4. They don't care about other people's children, who legitimately cannot be vaccinated. My friend's daughter is allergic to eggs. Many vaccines are grown in eggs. She cannot give her daughter these vaccines, as for her a side effect would be likely death - not a risk any doctor would advise a parent to take! Other kids may be immunocompromised. Do you want your kid infecting the kid with leukemia and killing them? It's also possible, of course, that those listening to the anti-vax charlatans are unaware of the risk their unvaccinated sprogs pose others, in which case shame on them for not doing the research on an issue impacting their children's health.

5. Following up on 4...they don't do the research on an issue of vital importance to their children's health!



I've proposed a new mandatory course in high school. It will help keep teh stoopid down. I think. It is a course that teaches, with many examples, the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. It teaches relative risk, and how to assess it. It also teaches the difference between causation and correlation. For those who have trouble with these concepts, it teaches regression towards the mean and perception bias. Which I possess. I hate reading stuff by religious right wingers, or ID proponents, or anti vaccine dingbats. It makes me mad. So I don't read it. But avoiding information you are likely to disagree with results in bias.



This post is hereby awarded an EPIC FAIL for silly. Sorry.