Why the sudden hostility to anti-vaxxers? (Not here, I mean in the culture at large...)

[Rocaille]

Sorry, this will be garbled: I'm thinking aloud. First of all, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I don't think I've ever refused a vaccination, either for myself or DD. But in the last year or so, I've noticed a sudden ramping up of hostility towards people who choose not to vaccinate their children, not necessarily on Mumsnet, but certainly in the culture at large. Even the term 'anti-vaxxer' is a new coinage, I think.

I'm posting to find out, has anyone else noticed this, and if so, what do you make of it?

For me, it's reminiscent of the way that, some years back, the trans agenda appeared suddenly at the forefront of public discourse. In my tinfoil-hat-donning moments, I wonder who decides what issues we debate, when we debate them and to what end. Why now for anti-vax? I suppose there have been some serious measles epidemics in recent years, but that doesn't seem to account for the heat and urgency of debate, or the way anti-vaxxers are being characterised as a certain type of person.

Another thing that makes me associate pro-vax with the trans agenda is that it's potentially about the compulsory medical treatment of children, and removing the parent (mother) as the final arbiter of what can and cannot be done to her child's body. That's where I see pro-vax going.

Could this be another dimension of the same agenda, or have I completely lost the plot?

But I think you may be over-stating the completeness of medical science.
I don't believe I did any such thing
There is so much that is not known.
Oh, I know. Scientists probably have a better idea of how much isn't known than others!

But the only way to know more is by science.

OP, I'm curious what the book was you were referring to? I'm interested in new discoveries for treating diseases!

The criticism of anti-vaxxers isn't recent. Also it's completely wrong to conflate people who want to stop children dying from preventable diseases with people who want to sterilise children because of gender feels.

" anti-vaxxers are being characterised as a certain type of person. "

That is correct. The term is stupid, selfish could equally apply. There are many suitable words to characterise the anti-vax squad.

No one can deny the brilliance of the scientific method, but if I understand correctly, one of it's inbuilt limitations is that it can only ever provide tentative, provisional answers, and never certainties

This was one of the central arguments in the beginnings of the scientific era. On the one side were the people we think of as the winners, who wanted to base it on examination of empirical evidence, drawing conclusions from them. The nature of empirical evidence though, from the standpoint of philosophy, means there are real limitations in what you can conclude.

The other perspective wanted science to work from first principles. They felt that with an observation based science it would be impossible to have the level of certainty required.

As it happens, empirical science had such amazing results people don't even think about this any more. Though it is interesting to consider some of the problems with things like pseudo science, and problems in the sciences around things like the efficacy of peer review, from that perspective.

It's called The Inflamed Mind by Professor Edward Bullimore. He's a psychiatrist. The book is about a recent paradigm shift in the understanding of the mind/body relationship, new discoveries about how the immune system of the body can affect the brain (until quite recently it was thought that the brain was protected from this by an impervious barrier. Turns out not to be the case). Specifically, he addresses depression. Discusses the failure of the pharmaceutical industry to develop new treatments. Apparently they've had a moratorium on any new research for many years now due to concerns about financial viability. Proposes inflammation as the driver of at least some depressions, particular treatment resistant ones. Proposes new treatments including electro-stimulation of the vagus nerve as a way of calming the body's immune response. It works for rheumatoid arthritis apparently, which is another inflammatory disease.

Probably lots of other stuff too, which I can't remember now. It's a really good book. I picked it up as I have a both an autoimmune disease and treatment resistant depression. I've acquired one of the devices he described, but it's too soon to know whether it's having any effects.

I criticise flat earthers too. Horses/course.

No one can deny the brilliance of the scientific method, but if I understand correctly, one of it's inbuilt limitations is that it can only ever provide tentative, provisional answers, and never certainties. The scientific method provides an incomplete, low resolution image of reality. That's good enough for me when I board a plane or indeed receive a vaccination. But to suggest that science can provide a god-like rendering of reality is just not reasonable.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you take about images of reality. And what the actual fuck is a "god like rendering of reality" Does anyone on any side of any spectrum know what that is?

Basically you accept science enough to go on planes, go to doctors, expect your doctors to have advanced degrees etc. but you still want to warn against science being accepted ... as what? Science is just explaining how we live in this world. It has always opened windows and doors into new ways of thinking.

God I wish people had to study history in school.

Oh, ps. Just remembered: he says they don't really know how SSRIs work. That shocked me. He says they were reverse-engineered. Were initially trialled as a treatment for - I forget what - tuberculosis? Anyway, suddenly all the trial subjects were cheerful, so the drug was swiftly relabelled and marketed as an antidepressant. They have some ideas about how they might work, but the mechanism has not been observed.

Well, sure people can make their own risk assessment for themselves but herd immunity is not just about thinking of the self.

No, I am not talking about individual decisions, but how decisions are made around public health questions. It often isn't as simple as 100 deaths vs 100 not deaths.

Even from the standpoint of the risks, not all are amenable to collection and study, if they are indirect. Interfering in bodily processes can have effects we aren't aware of. At one time many people thought it was a good idea to use bacteria killing cleaners in the home, and the more cleanliness and lack of pathogens the better. We now know that isn't true, but it isn't straightforward. Someone had to ask the right questions. We now know certain kinds of testing for disease causes more problems than it prevents. We now know that restricting allergens has a negative effect, on individuals and in terms of the population.

What effect does reducing the number of childhood infections have, that we can't see? There is some reason to think it could have links to diseases like childhood leukaemia, but in a very complicated way.

If we are aware of these kinds of possibilities, it suggests a more conservative approach to introducing new treatments and drugs.

That's apart from the cost issue. Vaccinating the populations against chickenpox costs a certain amount of money. What else could you do with that money? How many deaths might that prevent, or how much difference to a QOL treatment? What is it best to spend you public money on?

I have no idea what you are talking about when you take about images of reality

Well science isn't the same as reality, is it? It's just a method for understanding (material) reality, that's all. Or that's my understanding.

Thanks, interesting.

Well science isn't the same as reality, is it? It's just a method for understanding (material) reality, that's all.

That's a fucking big 'just' and 'all'!

As to the nature of reality and whether there is anything other than material reality, maybe you need a thread under the philosophy etc topic.

But in the specific context of medicine and disease, understanding material reality is what matters and science is the only credible means of doing so.

Just remembered: he says they don't really know how SSRIs work.

Yes, that whole narrative about depression being a chemical imbalance that the drug corrects is just untrue.

I suppose someone thought it was a good way to explain it to a patient, but I think ultimately this kind of thing increases distrust of doctors and drug companies when people find out it is false. Especially if it turns out they don't work as well as has been let on, they conclude it was all a self-serving lie.

What effect does reducing the number of childhood infections have, that we can't see? There is some reason to think it could have links to diseases like childhood leukaemia, but in a very complicated way.

The story about the little girl who died of diphtheria makes me see that vaccinations are a good thing.

But I think, Goosefoot, that there is an argument to be had that there may be unforeseen consequences. I heard vaccinations might be the reason new and strange diseases are popping up like AIDS and SARS. I had an ex who was doing a PhD in microbiology and he was convinced AIDS was man made or something because it was just so strange and didn't behave like other viruses.

Especially if it turns out they don't work as well as has been let on, they conclude it was all a self-serving lie.

Yes, SSRIs are getting a lot of flak these days. I think the stats say they're only effective for about 30% patients and yet for a good many of those, they'll be literally life-saving.

Also, re: lies and SSRIs, see the recent and long overdue admission that, as patients have been claiming for years, they can be really, really hard to get off!

Well science isn't the same as reality, is it? It's just a method for understanding (material) reality, that's all. Or that's my understanding.

yes indeed. reality is reality and the rest of it is us trying to figure it out - and thanks to all those who figured out sanitation, sewage systems, clean water, electricity, vaccinations, antibioitics, chemo therapy, etc etc.

I have no idea what you mean about reality and science. Do you realise you live in a world which scientists have made immeasurably better? Or do you think it is all about "reality"

It's selfish. However much they try to defend their position it's inherently selfish because they are relying on other parents vaccinating to protect their unvaccinated child. They're already putting their child at risk, if anti vaxxing became popular their child would be in actual danger.

You know it's important the scientists know that science is just an approximation? (Ad generally they do, especially the good ones.) It's important to how we interpret science. It's not just hot air.

I'm not pining for bubonic plague, pallisers. All is well.

But I think, Goosefoot, that there is an argument to be had that there may be unforeseen consequences. I heard vaccinations might be the reason new and strange diseases are popping up like AIDS and SARS. I had an ex who was doing a PhD in microbiology and he was convinced AIDS was man made or something because it was just so strange and didn't behave like other viruses.

Well, i am not making any kind of claim like that. What I am saying is that when we realise there are many unknowns, complex relationships, how often mistakes are made, how often we don't entirely understand what is going on in the human body - all together these suggest that the best approach to all medical interventions may be one that is fairly conservative.

You can say something similar about interventions into other complex systems like ecological systems: our track record in interference, even with the best of intentions, is not so good that we should fall prey to hubris.

I had an ex who was doing a PhD in microbiology and he was convinced AIDS was man made or something because it was just so strange and didn't behave like other viruses.

he was stupid and wrong. Not right.

I'm not sure how understanding how science works, from an epistemological standpoint, equates to dismissing it.