[nika]

The rejection of science, in favor of an ideological agenda, is literally destroying our economy, and may well destroy our society.

One of the key enablers of this is that people like you-- who soundly reject science-- believe they have "facts and science" on their side.

The idea that "things...are not up for debate" is the most profoundly anti-science (and anti-intellectual) thing that can be said. I have yet to meet a pro-vaccination person who was willing to talk about the actual science.

Please, also realize when you say "mandatory" you are saying that you endorse the use of violence on people who-- for whatever reasons-- choose to make a different choice about the healthcare of their children.

It is one thing to incarcerate, or kill if they resist, someone who has committed a crime like murder or rape. It is quite another for you to endorse the use of violence for the "Crime" of not being politically correct.

Your ideology posits that whatever you deem to be "good for society" gives you the justification of using violence to enforce. First I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a tyrant known to the face of the earth who didn't use such rationalizations. But secondly, it is worth noting that implicit in this claim is the presumption that everyone is your slave, and everyone's life is to be lived according to your (or your creed's) edicts.

That is the opposite of liberty, and contrary to the entire history of common law, and specifically the US constitution which recognizes people as having inalienable rights. One of these rights recognized in the declaration of independence is the pursuit of "life". Quite literally, that means the right and power to make their own health care choices, based on their best understanding of the state of knowledge at the time.

In my experience, those who are wary of vaccines are pretty well aware of the state of the science on the issue, while those are pro-vaccines are generally after an ideological agenda of mandatory vaccination, and only invoke the word "science" to put forth the idea that their opposition rejects it.

Well, I see thru your claim. You reject science, the scientific method and the entirety of intellectualism. You are being dogmatic.

Edit: Everyone who votes me down without responding to my issues, proves my claim. I made an argument here that substantially contributes to the discussion. You vote me down and you vote to make HN a popularity contest where posts are ranked by adherence to The Party Line, rather than contributing to discussion.

By doing so you just prove that the claim about being influenced by "facts and science" is false and the reality is political ideology over all.

[lmkg]

> ... endorse the use of violence on people who-- for whatever reasons-- choose to make a different choice about the healthcare of their children.

> It is one thing to incarcerate, or kill if they resist, someone who has committed a crime like murder or rape. It is quite another for you to endorse the use of violence for the "Crime" of not being politically correct.

By not getting vaccinations, they are putting other people's health at risk (cf. herd immunity, and children too young to be vaccinated). This is not simply an issue of free choice or ideology. This is not an issue of just what the consequences are to themselves (if it were, I wouldn't have issue). The issue is that they are endangering the lives of others. Force, or the threat of force, is a reasonable response to the endangerment of human lives. I would go so far as to say that it's qualitatively similar to murder (though quantitatively smaller). We have several documented cases every year of infants too young to receive the vaccination dying of whooping cough that they contracted from unvaccinated adults.

"Things are not up for debate" only in the sense that no amount of rhetoric can disprove an empirically proven fact. The facts, which were arrived at through science, are that vaccines save lives, and that when individuals are not vaccinated they put not just themselves but other people at danger as well. In the hypothetical, were science to discover new facts disproving this, I would revise my opinion, but these facts have been established over such a long time by so many studies that I consider the odds not just remote but literally impossible.

My experience, and you may be an exception although I doubt it, is that people who are ideologically opposed to vaccines have read scientific studies, but aren't actually familiar with science as a process. That is to say, they read a study, and think that it's science and its conclusion must be true. Evaluating a study means also examining its process for sources of bias, examining alternative explanations, and reproducing results in repeated studies. The effectiveness of vaccines and the concept of herd immunity has gone through that process. Anti-vaccination literature that I have seen does not withstand that process.

[nika]

"My experience, and you may be an exception although I doubt it, "

Of course you doubt it because you've been taught that anyone who disagrees with this position is a religious nut.

Reality is, I'm a scientist and an athiest. I'm not even taking a position against vaccination.

I'm just pointing out that your side is engaged in a witch hunt based on name calling... not on science.

You failed to provide any science, but you made sicentific claims that are... vague at best, and certainly not supported by any evidence you have provided.

[jerf]

"I have yet to meet a pro-vaccination person who was willing to talk about the actual science."

Either you're lying or not looking.

Here's the scientific argument of interest:

1. Before vaccinations, there existed several diseases that killed millions and maimed millions more on a routine basis.

2. Vaccines have been developed for many of these diseases, and deployed out into the population.

3. These diseases no longer kill millions and maim millions more.

If you find the "pro-vaccination" side a bit uninterested in the question of whether one in a few hundred thousand vaccinations have bad side effects at times, that's because scientifically it is worth how to further mitigate those risks but it isn't even remotely a scientific answer that vaccinations shouldn't take place.

In terms of the costs/benefits analysis of vaccinations, you are up against the deaths of millions on the plus side. You should expect it to be a bit of a challenge to lay out enough cons to win your point! The deaths of millions are hard to miss, if they weren't a great stonking benefit you wouldn't have to be arguing, it would be plainly obvious.

So, for the sake of argument, I will stipulate every pre-existing scientific argument you can show me is true. (Thatm is, you don't get to take advantage of my preemptive agreement to make new ones.) Show me how the scientific costs outweigh the scientific benefits, and given the nature of the benefits bear in mind that I'm demanding to see millions upon millions of bodies a decade and absolutely nothing less. Go for it.

Science isn't about slinging around big words or running lab tests. It's about making hypotheses, testing them, looking for why your hypothesis is wrong, and iterating that process. A pro-vaccination advocate does not need to go into biochemistry or argue about sub-.01% cases to make their point. They simply point at the positive results of vaccination and rest their case. That IS science, in its purest form. Stringing together words and selectively reading studies and biasing the argument until if you squint you might have a point in some cases is the opposite of science. If you're not finding people "scientifically" engaging with you I submit it's because the pro-vaccinators do not have a need to engage in what you think is "science" to prove the point, because they've got real science (and millions upon millions upon millions of non-corpses) on their side.

[pradocchia]

1.Before vaccinations, there existed several diseases that killed millions and maimed millions more on a routine basis. 2. Vaccines have been developed for many of these diseases, and deployed out into the population. 3. These diseases no longer kill millions and maim millions more.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

I've seen similar graphs over the years, basically arguing that these diseases were in long-term decline before the introduction of their respective vaccines, and that the vaccines merely sealed the deal.

Were I more ambitious, I'd seek out the source data from official sources, and confirm or refute the analysis myself.

This paper appears to have asked the same questions:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9088445

It came to the following conclusion:

Historical data provide evidence of proof of efficacy of mass immunization for measles, polio, rubella, mumps, and pertussis, but not for diphtheria or tetanus.

This does not contradict the claim that the incidence of said diseases were already in significant decline prior to the introduction of immunizations, or that immunizations were not necessary for eradication.

It seems like a rather obvious analysis to do: compare the maximum historic incidence of said disease, the incidence at the time of vaccine introduction, and the rates of decline prior to and following said introduction. It should be fairly easy to argue from that whether a) the vaccine contributed to eradication, and b) the vaccine was necessary for eradication.

[anthonyb]

> I'll just leave this here:

> http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

Ooh, is that a rabid anti-vax site? Let's look at the home page...

GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US

HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES

DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION

WHY VACCINES ARE INEFFECTIVE

WHY VACCINES ARE HARMFUL

WHY VACCINATION CONTINUES

THE BENEFICIAL NATURE OF CHILDHOOD INFECTION

Yep, looks like it.

[pradocchia]

Did you consider the content of my post before posting that knee-jerk reaction? The first site is inflammatory, but for our purposes it is just hosting some graphs.

similar graphs, less inflammatory sites:

http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.imagesByTo...

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/death/

The CDC addresses the claim of historical decline here:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

with this graph:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/images/measles_incidence...

Well, sure, so the measles vaccine sealed the deal, yes. But then you look at the longer timeline, and the vaccination occurred on the tail end of a much longer decline.

Science-Based Medicine has a particularly indignant blog entry on the topic here:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431

Note the same trimming of the timeline.

I suspect the truth here is that vaccines were indeed effective in the (near-) eradication of most infectious diseases, but these diseases were already in longterm historic decline due to other more instrumental factors, like increasing urbanization and improved sanitation.

[anthonyb]

> Did you consider the content of my post before posting that knee-jerk reaction? The first site is inflammatory, but for our purposes it is just hosting some graphs.

Yes, yes I did. The next time you want to make a point, pick a site with a bit more credibility.

Better hygiene and medical care helps stop people dying of infectious disease. But your inference is that because of this, vaccines are ineffective. Oh look, here's a better image:

http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.viewImageD...

Right? There are hundreds of these sorts of graphs and epidemiological studies out there, and they all look pretty much exactly the same. Better hygiene only gets you so far - to completely wipe out an infectious disease, you need vaccination.

[pradocchia]

The next time you want to make a point, pick a site with a bit more credibility.

I'm not here to spoon feed you information in line with your heuristic baggage. You can "take me seriously" or not.

But your inference is that because of this, vaccines are ineffective.

My inference is that vaccines were not instrumental in the longterm decline of infectious diseases, contrary to the OP's claim. I thought I was pretty clear on that point.

to completely wipe out an infectious disease, you need vaccination.

This is a sound public policy message to encourage vaccination, but the data, as far as I can see, does not support such a strong and sweeping conclusion. Yes vaccines appear effective in the reduction of some infectious disease. It does not follow that vaccines are thus necessary to wipe out infectious disease. Surely this modest level of nuance is not too much to grasp?

[nika]

You're confusing ideology, eg: "It is moral to force all people to be vaccinated even if the vaccinations kill some percentage of children" with science.

I really don't care what you're demanding to see because your sides position is to assert that "science agrees with our ideology" (without providing any backing and even though science and ideology are really fundamentally different) and then to demand arbitrary proof for the opposition to even be granted the chance to have an opinion.

While your at it, please feel free to prove-- scientifically of course- the claim that people concerned about the safety of vaccines want to "kill children".

You have made no scientific claims or scientific arguments. I think the unfortunate thing is that you do not even realize that you are rejecting science.

You don't get to pick and choose, and you don't get to reject results simply because they disagree with your ideology (which is what you're doing when you make up arbitrary bars to be met, which is positively absurd when you aren't meeting any bars yourself.)

One of the great dishonesties about this debate is that the pro-vaccination side won't even make a specific, defendable, scientific claim and then defend it.

Which makes sense because the entire point of this "debate" is for your partisans to label those who might opt out of vaccines as irrational...

It is nothing more than a witch hunt, and it is extremely offensive for you to wrap yourselves in the realm of science while absolutely refusing to even look at the literature on the subject.

[jerf]

"You're confusing ideology"

No, you are. I said science and explicitly held myself to the topic of science. You said you never met anyone willing to talk about the science, and that is all I addressed.

"You have made no scientific claims or scientific arguments."

And you are 100% utterly, totally, completely wrong. I told you, science isn't about big words or biochemistry or any sort of why, it is about what. Before vaccines, disease. After vaccines, nearly no disease. Causality established via details I didn't go into but you are free to investigate, at this point they are plausibly common knowledge. THAT'S SCIENCE. That's it. Right there. On the topic of whether vaccines are a net good, that is the argument. Mechanisms are irrelevant. Whys are irrelevant.

And the reason science works that way is that it avoids exactly the error you're trying to induce me into, where we bring various bits of "whys" to bang against each other until we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and whether Pisces are more likely to marry Tauruses or Cancers, and all the other massive cognitive errors that way of thought creates, by valuing "explanations" over facts. The fact is that where vaccines go, deaths go down, and no amount of arguing to the contrary matters. This is exactly why science is so important, because it's one of the few ways known to prevent the error you're stuck in.

You're the one offering up psuedoscientific approaches and freely conflating ideology with the simple matter of how science determines the most likely outcomes for things. It is certainly a common delusion that science is about why, but the why comes later; once you establish that vaccines prevent disease, the next study hypothesizes a reason and tests that hypothesis, but no amount of fancy hypotheses will change the previous results.

You don't see science because you can't recognize it, not because it doesn't exist. You're asking for the ounce of proof and noticing the metric tons I'm handing you in the form of every living person who would be dead without them, in the millions. You may very well be one of them, even if you weren't vaccinated. Mercifully, we'll never have to find out.

(I actually freely admit the fact that vaccines are incredibly powerful and effective does not immediately prove compulsory vaccination is moral or correct, but I'm not addressing that, by choice. Science first, moral reactions to scientific results second. Neither step can be skipped but they should never be done out of order.)

[Robin_Message]

> The idea that "things...are not up for debate" is the most profoundly anti-science (and anti-intellectual) thing that can be said. I have yet to meet a pro-vaccination person who was willing to talk about the actual science.

MMR doesn't cause autism, as was fairly obvious at the time and the now-settled science shows. Do you accept that, in this case, it is not true to say "those who are wary of vaccines are pretty well aware of the state of the science on the issue," and in fact those people were flat out wrong?

> their own health care choices,

We are talking about childhood vaccinations. I agree these are difficult moral and political issues, but you can't just quote the founding fathers and act like you've proved your point. Children do not make their own healthcare choices, their parents do, and society is more than happy to restrict the choices of both parents and children.

> politically correct

This is ridiculous dog-whistle. Please taboo it and use a phrase that describes what you mean in each case. It like "health and safety", to which I say: Do you object to having people not die in factory accidents or is it that you want the privilege of drinking polluted water?

[nika]

I cannot debate a scientific issue with someone who rejects, out of hand, the entirety of the scientific process, as you do. When you use the term "now-settled science" you are rejecting the scientific method and science.

Only in the realm of politicians and ideologues is the term "settled science" used.

Since your opening position-- and that of the mandatory vaccination ideology-- is to reject science and claim that you don't have to be accountable under it because you claim your opponents reject science-- you have already lost.

[bryanlarsen]

Science relies quite heavily on the concept of "settled science". The word used in science is "assumption". No scientist has the ability to prove everything from first principles in their work, they rely on a base of assumptions. If any of their assumptions get overturned, their own work gets overturned as well, so they choose their assumptions carefully. Sometimes that stack of assumptions can get pretty high and shaky, but science cannot operate without it.

[Opie_taylor]

And we all know what assume does.

[philwelch]

Your ideology posits that whatever you deem to be "good for society" gives you the justification of using violence to enforce. First I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a tyrant known to the face of the earth who didn't use such rationalizations. But secondly, it is worth noting that implicit in this claim is the presumption that everyone is your slave, and everyone's life is to be lived according to your (or your creed's) edicts.

Of course every tyrant used such "rationalizations"--every governing institution in the history of man explicitly initiates force and infringes upon individual freedom in favor of the common good, and we have things like taxes, freeways, and food inspections to show for it. The kind of libertarian objection you mention isn't just an objection to especially oppressive government--it's an objection against all government.

This isn't a straw man attack, either. If you don't allow for some amount of initiative force for the common good, you don't allow for any system of government which has ever existed, including the US Constitution. Consistent libertarianism leads to anarchism. And that's why the force card isn't effective: it's the logical equivalent of saying "the government shouldn't mandate vaccination, because the government shouldn't exist".

The only two logical options are to be an anarchist, or to concede that some violence for the common good is justified--and then go on to discuss why this instance does or does not justify institutional state violence.

---

On the other hand, negligently infecting other people with communicable diseases is a form of physical force, and hence there is a legitimate interest in preventing this from happening.

---

Finally, what you're discussing is ideology. Now, it's important to point something out. There is an important distinction between science and "ideology", or whatever you want to call about it, in that science is only concerned with matters of fact. Matters of value and morality are explicitly outside of science. The closest science can possibly come to ideology is when the facts would dictate any sane person to choose one option over the other. For instance, if scientists tell us they are 99.99% certain that an asteroid will collide into the Earth 20 years from now, and that in the event of a collision, it is 99.99% likely the human race will immediately go extinct, any sane person would conclude "we have to do something to stop that astroid". But science, qua science, can't come to that conclusion by itself. If you were some type of madman who wanted to destroy all human life on Earth, the science would be just as interesting and convincing to you as it would be to a sane person, you would just be led to a different reaction due to your value system.

Or, back to this point--if your value system favors children not dying preventable deaths from 19th century diseases, you probably favor vaccination. But if your value system favors not being forced to do things against your will over children not dying preventable deaths from 19th century diseases, that's entirely up to you--just as long as you accept the facts of the situation.

And, historically, this is what a lot of anti-vax people fail to do. People aren't rational enough to just say "I value not being forced to vaccinate my kids over my kids' lives" (which is a disgusting value system, but you can't argue against value systems), they'd rather lie about facts and say "vaccines cause autism, therefore it's in the best interests of my child not to vaccinate them".

[Opie_taylor]

Your argument implies that the people that don't vaccinate their children are consciously inimical to their health, when the fact is that the parents are trying to do whats best for their children.

Heck, sixty years ago, the majority did not believe that tobacco was a carcinogen. What 'settled science' is going to be overturned in the next sixty years?

[philwelch]

I don't think any parent could be sane, rational, well-informed, and opposed to vaccinating their kids, so clearly there has to be something more going on there. And it's not that parents are insane.