Are the altie anti-vaxers responsible for deaths?!

As you know, I try and answer most of the vaccine questions on Y!A. The anti-vaxxers do concern me and they are a massive threat to public health. In short, they lie and fear-monger. In answer to your question: "What can be done (if anything) to stop them peddling lies?" Counter their lies (which are very easy to disprove) with the correct information and robust data.

The concern in the UK at the moment is that more people have died as a result of H1N1 (confirmed cases) than is expected. Although, most of those who died did have underlying health problems and other risk factors (e.g. pregnancy); the most concerning thing is the fact that none of those people had the Influenza vaccine this season, and almost all were entitled to it free on the NHS. The question is why? The anti-vaxxers and their fear-mongering is a very likely factor. Pregnant women are up to 5 times more likely to require hospital admission with the flu. It is very important that pregnant women and those in the "at risk" group have the vaccine.

Another factor this season is spending cuts. Part of the funding used to promote this vaccine has been axed by that tosser David Cameron.

In the case of the influenza vaccine; one of the main reasons people seem to be avoiding it this year is because it has the "swine flu" component in it. This of course isn't logical. The novel H1N1 is simply another strain of flu. It does not make the vaccine any different or any more harmful. The influenza vaccines are always trivalent- they always contain 2 A strains and 1 B strain. The reason there was a separate vaccine last year was because the swine flu emerged after the production of the seasonal vaccine- otherwise it would have been included in that pattern and no one would have given it a second thought.

The shot is about 70-80% effective provided the viruses match the strains against which the vaccine was prepared.

The media, in particular, the abhorrent Daily Mail, have been responsible for spreading worry amongst the public, In particular about GBS, which I have discussed here:

In short, this vaccine will save lives. Provided you are not allergic to eggs, there is no rational reason for anyone who is in the "at risk" group not to have it. The vaccine is very safe and the risks are far less than the disease it prevents.

The anti-vaxxers did not reach their position based on reason, or any evidence. There are various reasons why some people oppose vaccines. I've discussed this here:

I would imagine Osteo's (the crackpot UK ones) and Chiropractors fit in somewhere between the germ theory denialists and new agers.
---------------------------------------…
Edit: @ Matt: Not EVERYONE is advised to have the influenza vaccine. Just those in the "at risk group" who are at risk from suffering major complications if they were to get the flu.

" My sisters and I had german measles. measles, mumps and chicken pox and survived. And we are all mega-healthy adults who rarely get sick."

Well thats good, but tell that to the ones that died or suffered severe long term health complications as a result of those diseases- there are millions. Have you ever seen a person paralyzed by polio, left infertile by mumps or someone scarred by smallpox? No? You have vaccines to thank for that.

Although the immunization schedule has expanded over the last 30 years, the number of antigens have decreased. The immune response to vaccines is insignificant compared to those against microorganisms you would encounter "naturally" in the environment.

"I mean really, have you ever just stopped to think and question things?"

Er...Yes. Believe it or not, there are scientists who think about this "stuff"!

Also, goggle herd immunization.

Edit: @Mr E: Perhaps you'd like to explain that to this ladies family: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl…

And stop lying. The influenza vaccines do NOT contain aluminium. Methyl and ethylmercury are different mercury compounds. The latter is far less toxic. The type found in some influenza vaccines (in trace amounts) is ethyl mercury, which does not bio-accumulate and easily cross the blood brain barrier like MeHg. It is also rapidly excreted.The vaccine does not increase your chances of getting the flu, and you get more formaldehyde from eating fruit than you do from any vaccine.

Anti-vaxxers are scientifically illiterate and dishonest.

Edit: Happy birthday JLI. I just sent you an online b'day card! x

They're not solely responsible, but they do shoulder an amount of the blame. Like others have said, if the anti-vaxxers are using lies as their tool, we have to counter with the truth.

A big win against anti-vaxxers came quite recently, when over the Thanksgiving weekend, The Skepchicks, and their readership, successfully campaigned against a "safeminds" propaganda piece, which was to be run in AMC theaters( a very large chain in the U.S).

Edit: *sheepishly* Hi Rhianna.

Pig-ignorant alties certainly need to shoulder the blame for the surge in scared mothers putting their children at risk: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/781987…

Vaccine rates goes down, disease incidence goes up. A pretty simple formula that even the terminally dim can grasp.

They are responsible for the deaths, absolutely. In a just world they would be charged with manslaughter. Since that's not likely to happen I think the best thing to be done is to spread the truth and hope that it gradually pushes out the lies.

Yes.
Just as in Stockholm in 1874 many died from smallpox as a result of an anti-vaccine campaign. Also, over tha last few years in UK an increase in serious measles related complications as a result of anti-MMR campaigns and an irresponsible media.

Yes, having groups advise people not to get vaccinated because of scary conspiracy theories is akin to having a group advocating never wearing safety belts for fear of hip injuries.

I cannot imagine why anyone who could get a vaccination for something harmful for free would not take it. Seems like common sense to me.

I would love to see some sort of lawsuit against these groups requiring them to "put up, or shut up" and provide hard evidence that these vaccines do all the horrible things they claim. But realistically our best bet is just to put the correct information out there and try and educate people into making the right choice.

EDIT: Happy B-day JLI.

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Je…

Matt, I am very glad to hear that you and your sisters are healthy adults free from any serious illness.

My sister, on the other hand, died too young after a lifetime of disability (including blindness, deafness and gradual paralysis) as a direct result of my mother contracting german measles/rubella during pregnancy. Like you, my mother survived rubella. Ultimately, her first born did not. No rubella vaccine then; my grandmother didn't have the option of having her children vaccinated and as a result two of her children and one of her grandchildren died as a result of illnesses which are now easily preventable through childhood vaccine.

And of course the fact that unvaccinated children today don't develop the illnesses their parents have refused to have them vaccinated against is herd immunity; those parents are relying on other people taking what they see as 'risks' with their children.

Yes, Nitram; it would certainly seem to be the case that anti-vaxers must shoulder some responsibility for deaths due to preventable conditions.

EDIT: Happy birthday JLI!

This is a good question. I would have to say they are partly responsible, but the people that listen to advice from sources on the internet who have no credentials at all, over their own doctors and nurses, have to bear part of the responsibility as well. As far as blaming certain professional groups, it is my understanding that the mainstream British osteopathic associations are pro-vaccination (please correct me if I am mistaken, as I am a US osteopathic physician) and that there are fringe groups of osteopaths there, and of DOs, MDs, and chiropractors here in the US. They do not represent the majority of their peers.

As far as peddling lies, ask for reliable sources of information which is usually not provided, and counter their arguments with the same. People (in most countries) have always been free to publish misinformation in print and now online. It is up to the reader to judge whether the source is reliable or not.

They are demonstrably so: http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.ht…

Being employed in a hospital I got my flu-shot a weeks ago. Being relatively young (You may wish me a happy birthday today if you like :-D) I am not at high risk of dying from flu, but I chose to get vaccinated in order to not infect others.

Now what to do about the lie peddling: The only thing we can do is to present information again and again. It won't silence the vaccine denialists, but hopefully it will reduce the damage they cause.

Edit:
Thank you very much everybody for your birthday greetings, both as PM's and in here. You guys and girls are simply the best:-))

They are most certainly responsible for increases in disease.
Whopping cough is one of those diseases - and my favorite example because we've seen quite a bit where I live - it lasts for usually three weeks (and three months isn't uncommon) and a person can several to several hundred of these bouts a day. The "whooping" is from when the patient is able to gasp for breath.
http://www.whoopingcough.net/sound%20of%…

Those anti-vaxxers are a public health menace.

no, that is the exact opposite of the truth, as usual. flu vaccines are proven to make people more, not less, likely to get the flu. they contain aluminum and mercury which cause alzheimer's disease, and formaldehyde which is a carcinogen. vaccination causes disease, it doesn't prevent it.

No. They are responsible for no deaths.
It's like asking the Pharma how many people they killed last year - again?
We do live in the free world and everybody does have free choice .
To take or not to take is up to each individual.

1st year of Medicine

First define "altie anti vaxer" because this term doesn't exist. So you're asking if some non-existent entity is responsible for deaths. Whatever, the short answer is NO.
5000 iu a day of vitamin D3 prevents flu. So why bother with a vaccine that contains foreign RNA and DNA fragments that can cause long term chronic disease. People do not die from flu, but rather from viral pneumonia, and contrary to drug company propaganda, per Cochrane studies, flu vaccine is worthless. Hand washing is more effective than flu vaccines. And there is absolutely no truth to the rumour that once a person is vaccinated they can't spread a virus to others. That notion is total hogwash.
Medical history is full of vaccine follies. The notion of vaccination was not accepted by most of the medical profession when it was first introduced and it's far from 100 per cent acceptance now.
The National Vaccine Information Centre has a wealth of information on vaccines. I suggest you study the information on that site for a more balanced critique of pros and cons.
What you're peddling is a pop culture notion of vaccination that the vaccine manufacturers would love everyone to believe, but the real research proves to be false.
Moreover, the real scientific issue is susceptibility, not some street version of a germ theory.
The drug companies are worried about losing income now that educated people are on to them and their media scare tactics. They don't care about mortality rates as long as they're making a buck. They'll never live down their phoney swine flu campaign that cost governments a fortune for nothing.
If those vaccines are so "safe" why is it that the vaccine manufacturers wanted legal immunity so that they couldn't be sued for adverse reactions -- ones that leave people paralyzed for life? That's really socially responsible huh?

Comparative statistics are the only useful ones. The ones you quoted don't mean anything otherwise.

As for flu vaccine, why does everyone need it? Swine flu was a pandemic, not an epidemic (most figures were < seasonal flu statistics). Seasonal flu is not high risk for the majority of people. Since when does everyone need to take something to prevent getting sick. Getting sick occasionally is perfectly normal.

Me, I get a headache for a couple of days and am abnormally tired. I rarely even get a runny nose. So why would I get vaccinated?

30 years ago, we had 6 childhood vaccines as oppposed to 30. Not one child (from a population of 8000) died from diseases or illnesses included in the additional 24 vaccinations. My sisters and I had german measles. measles, mumps and chicken pox and survived. And we are all mega-healthy adults who rarely get sick.

Agree with vaccines or not, have you never though 30 vaccines over the fricking top? I mean really, have you ever just stopped to think and question things? If not, then you're a sheep.

Reading this type of rubbish just reminds me of the saying on a coaster I just had to buy - "Common sense is not common at all!"