Ignorance threatens public health


A Disneyland-based measles outbreak that now counts nearly 70 cases in the western United States, plus one in Mexico, sheds light on a worrisome epidemic that has taken hold in some of the country’s most affluent communities. Symptoms of this condition include a rejection of peer-reviewed scientific literature and a propagation of sensational, unreliable information. Of further concern, a recent study published in the medical journal Pediatrics confirms the tendency of afflicted individuals to cluster geographically, endangering those yet unaffected. So far, logic and reason have proved insufficient in treating this pestilence. No, I’m not talking about airborne viruses. I’m talking about ignorance.

Deena Baum | Daily Trojan

Deena Baum | Daily Trojan

Anti-vaxxers, as they’ve become colloquially known, express distrust toward the effectiveness and safety of childhood vaccines, administered to safeguard children against illnesses such as measles, mumps, smallpox and whooping cough. While less than 2 percent of American parents opt out of the recommended vaccine schedule for children in kindergarten, this small but loud community of skeptics is having an adverse impact on the public at large. Their reticence to vaccinate presents a threat to everyone’s health and security.

Just look at the Disneyland cases. The majority of measles patients who contracted the disease at the park or from someone who recently visited, are people who’ve chosen to forgo the measles vaccine. Were he alive today, Charles Darwin might argue that their infection represents a form of natural selection against foolishness. Except that at least six of the infections reported from the outbreak are in people who have in fact received the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Though the two recommended doses of MMR have been shown to be 99 percent effective against infection, some recipients — for reasons not quite understood by doctors — do not produce appropriate antibodies in response to vaccination. This is how the problem starts.

When a significant portion of a population is vaccinated against a disease, its collective immunity provides a degree of protection even for those who are vulnerable. Epidemiologists call this herd immunity. In an ideal world, the herd immunity sustained by universal vaccination would be sufficient in protecting those for whom the vaccine was ineffective. But as an increasing amount of parents join the anti-vaccine movement, the efficacy of the herd immunity is weakened. Anti-vaxxers cite the freedom of personal choice in defense of their actions — or, rather, inactions. As it turns out, personal choice is cause for public crisis.

Part of the problem has to do with the ease with which anti-vaxxers obtain exemption from state vaccination laws. A 2012 policy review published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that nine states expect only the signature of a parent to qualify an incoming kindergartner for personal-belief exemption from required vaccines. Twenty-one states, California included, require only a doctor’s signature. No explanation, no evidence of allergy or immune condition needed. This dubious policy exhibits neglect towards the relevant science and a lack of consideration towards public welfare.

The greatest frustration invoked by anti-vaxxers lies in the flawed nature of their claims. Many still derive conviction from a 1998 study that concluded a link between childhood vaccines and autism. The publication was retracted in 2010 after the methods and results of the study were found to be fraudulent. The researcher responsible had his license revoked that same year, and no causal relationship between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders has since been substantiated. Other concerns regarding the overload of infant immune systems, adverse neuropsychological outcomes, seizures and fevers all find contrary evidence in the data accrued by dozens of large-scale, long-term pediatric studies. Anecdotal evidence does not equate to empirical evidence.

Of course, it would be unwise to assume that the current body of findings closes the book on the great vaccine debate. It is of huge importance, a necessity even, that reputable agencies like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to monitor all available vaccines indefinitely. For now, however, the data point overwhelmingly to the success and reliability of vaccination towards disease prevention.

As for the vaccine against ignorance? Regrettably, the science is still out on that one.

Austin Reagan is a junior majoring in environmental studies and political science. His column, “The Scientific Method,” runs Mondays. 

20 replies
  1. george257
    george257 says:

    to clarify, I do advocate to get all vaccinations, I have all vaccinations, and if I have children, I will definitely make sure they get all vaccinations.

    I tend to think more about the unlikely possibility that the government requires less doses of vaccines because there are too many people getting vaccines already knowing that if more doses were required the percent would be much closer to 100% than it is now and if the disease were completely eradicated people would forget, so instead they require so few doses of the vaccine knowing that a percentage will not produce antibodies and if exposed will get sick any way and be shown to serve as periodic reminders of the need for vaccines.

    the main problem I have with this article, is that, by using such obviously faulty logic, that it is covertly trying to recruit more people into opting out of vaccines. (that is, if you tell someone you cannot have something, like the option of opting out of something, they will tend to want it even more, especially if you are so condescending to them by calling them ignorant, imagine if you were called ignorant because of your beliefs regarding religion).

  2. george257
    george257 says:

    the only reason for concern of a threat is if the 99% effectiveness of vaccines is misleading or inaccurate.

    someone who is vaccinated and never contracts the disease is not a statistic which would show the effectiveness of a vaccine if that person never comes in contact with the disease since that person might not have developed the antibodies.

    on the other hand, if the 99% effectiveness is so certain, than there is clearly no threat whatsoever. so why why campaign to require vaccines?

    recently the cdc has made a number of big PUBLIC admitted mishaps, this is not counting the other mishaps that they have kept secret, if any.

    traveling be plane is statistically significantly safer than by car or boat, yet those who opt out of travelling by plane can be 100% certain in all cases that they won’t be harmed as a result of traveling by plane since they have opted out. so why campaign to take away the option to opt out of vaccines?

    I just don’t understand what the cause is to harass, stigmatize, and segregate, those who opt out of vaccines, especially since they are logically no threat whatsoever to 99% of those who are vaccinated.

    It just seems logically no different that religious persecution, which is an ignorance that is more dangerous than the imaginary one the article is complaining about.

  3. george257
    george257 says:

    In other words, the threat 1% who contract the disease after being vaccinated, (which might just be the result of poor quality control making the vaccines, or maybe the doctor or nurse made a 1 in 100 mistake in administering the virus, like mix-up, etc.), according to their vaccination records, which could be easily forged, is not what the article is about, if it was, then it would be talking about tests for virus immunity/antibodies rather than vaccinated records.
    If there was no way to opt out of vaccines, or if those who opt out of vaccines are unreasonably stigmatized and harassed for non-existent threats even more than they are now for now, then, there might just be significantly more vaccination records forged, or worse, if there is a serious mishap in future new vaccines as there was for polio, like for instance Ebola, and EVERYONE is required to get the vaccine at the SAME TIME, then everyone might get infected and die.

    that is, in point of fact, those 1% who are vaccinated but don’t produce antibodies are just as much, if not more, dangerous than those who opt out, but no one is talking about testing everybody for antibodies, and treating everyone who does not have antibodies equally, regardless of whether or not they were vaccinated.
    but my point is that, no matter what, those people who do have antibodies, especially those who acquire antibodies from vaccinations, will never, under any circumstance, contract the disease, and are therefore not under any threat whatsoever.
    but this does not preclude the possibility, no matter how slight, of someone being vaccinated to contract the disease, which is a very real possibility based on history, as well as the fact that doctors don’t know enough to know why 1% don’t develop antibodies.
    it is like the problem the shortsighted economic models had that led to the 2008 financial crisis, they failed to take into account historic trends.

  4. george257
    george257 says:

    According to the logic used in the article, there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to 99% of those who are vaccinated since they will not, under any circumstance, ever contract the disease, and therefore no reason for any outrage or change in public policy including expulsion or segregation of those who choose not to be vaccinated remembering the mishap of the polio vaccine causing polio as well as the mishap with the latest seasonal flu vaccine.

  5. NorCal Native
    NorCal Native says:

    LOL. Typical propaganda. I’m very well-informed about the alleged benefits of vaccinations. It’s just that I simply reject the validity of the claims, taking into account vaccine contamination, failures, and profit motivation. Time and time again “health care” products have proven to be money-making schemes, not solutions to illness.

    It must really irk the needle-fanatics that most of us who won’t accept their opinions – yes, opinions – that vaccinations are “beneficial” are far from “ignorant” and “uneducated.” The average vaccine truth individual has an earned Bachelor’s or Master’s, far from the portrayal of high school dropout losers afraid of “science.” Plenty of doctors and nurses refuse to take the needle, as well.

  6. Bernardo
    Bernardo says:

    This article, and others like it, are missing one of the biggest reasons why people don’t get the measles shot. It’s not that all these folks think vaccines are dangerous or not beneficial. Rather it is a religious objection to the way the MMR vaccination was developed. Do a Google search on “MMR cell line”, and find out where that cell line was derived from. And then you’ll know why many pro-vaccine folks that get ALL the other vaccinations refrain from getting the MMR vaccine. And BTW, there is no longer any alternative sold in the U.S. All MMR vaccinations available here use that controversial cell line. Until the FDA approves a non-controversial MMR vaccination like the one used in Japan, many people here will go without the MMR shot.

    • Marshall Thompson
      Marshall Thompson says:

      “religious objection?” Ignorant, first -century bullshit. I’ll take 21st century science every time.

      • Bernardo
        Bernardo says:

        I completely agree with science as it relates to vaccinations. I believe just like you do, that vaccinations are a necessary part of disease prevention. Perhaps you didn’t understand my post.

      • Bernardo
        Bernardo says:

        I do have science question for you. The name of the cell line used in the U.S MMR vaccination uses the cell line called WI-38, which was developed around the middle of the last century. Can you tell me from where the WI-38 was obtained? Go ahead and give it a shot, science whiz. We’re waiting to see if you get the answer right.

  7. grammyprepper
    grammyprepper says:

    “the majority” of those affected were unvaccinated…but no one ever shows exact numbers, either side…so SOME of those affected WERE vaccinated…why don’t we hear more about THAT fact…

  8. Carson
    Carson says:

    The CDC is not a reputable agency. It’s so easy to do a control study on unvaccinated kids versus vaccinated kids. The unvaccinated kids will be healthier. But why don’t they do these studies? Because the studies will show parents have been lied to about the safety of vaccination. Like antibiotics, vaccination is overused and misuse. BTW, I vaccinated my child years ago and so I’m not against vaccination. I’m against vaccines that don’t work but are forced on the public because Big Pharma makes $$. Read Suzanne Humphries’ book on vaccination.

    • Bernardo
      Bernardo says:

      Many folks who refuse the MMR shot fully agree with the science behind vaccinations. It’s the source of the cell line (WI-38) used in MMR that make many people refrain from getting that shot for religious and ethical reasons. I know lots of people who would pay a lot of money to get their kids vaccinated for MMR if only they could get access to a version of the MMR shot that isn’t based on WI-38. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist in the U.S.

    • NorCal Native
      NorCal Native says:

      Also in the news right now is licensed medical doctor Jack Wolfson, who refuses to take the needle. Epithets and buzzwords don’t create reality.

      Ask yourself why so many “health care” institutions across America have trouble meeting their goal of 100% vaccination of their medical staff (e.g., MDs and RNs). Sometimes it’s barely over 50%. Are these folks ALL “ignorant” like you claim? LOL.

        • Bernardo
          Bernardo says:

          If you’re knowledgeable about vaccinations, where did WI-38 come from? (that’s the cell line used to develop the MMR vaccination). I’m a pro-vaccination guy, but the answer to this question gives me some pause about the MMR vaccine. Do you know the answer?

Comments are closed.