Science Advocacy
Science Advocacy
Welcome to part 3 of our series on how to talk to your friends and family who hold anti-science views on vaccine safety. Click here for part 1, and part 2, which covered the benefit/risk of childhood vaccines, reliable sources of data, and conspiracy theories. Now on to part 3.
PART III: Misunderstanding science and/or over-simplifying how science actually works
Science can be complicated. Fully grasping the basics of a single field of study can take a lifetime. Most of the anti-vaccine arguments you will hear do not stem from bad science. Instead they come from the mistakes outlined in our previous posts – misunderstanding the risk/benefit profile of vaccines, trusting bad data, or believing in conspiracy theories.
Anti-vaccine arguments based on science are the easiest to refute given time, but they are often the hardest to refute in the moment. If someone pulls out an obscure research paper that you haven’t read before as evidence that vaccines are dangerous, a good scientist needs to take the time to read it in order to refute it. This is a big reason why we at UYBFS don’t like to try to argue science in the comments section of Facebook posts. In order to get our science right, we often need to do research – that’s how science works.
With this said, most anti-vaccine scientific claims fall into several general categories – seven by our count. Let’s go through each with some examples from the anti-vaccines posts from our recent Science humor Facebook post (see part 1).
1) Misunderstanding basic science.
This one is pretty straight forward. Scientific misconceptions are everywhere, and getting the basics of science wrong can lead to faulty conclusions. Here are some examples:
“If you look at what caused polio it sure as hell was’nt [sic] apples. So it was caused by toxins in the environment, ddt etc”
Polio is caused by a virus, not by toxins or pesticides.
“If you’d like, I also cite studies that show that cell denovo replication can be affected by damage to certain proteins caused by febrile seizures and axonal stretch injury.”
These words literally mean nothing in the order above. It sounds smart, but it’s nonsense.
“Hmmm, she gets vaccinated to protect herself, but if I’m not vaccinated then I can spread my virus to her? How does that work, exactly, if this vaccination you speak of actually does anything?”
This is an important principal of immunity that the author of this comment seems to have completely missed. Vaccines are not 100% effective – no medication is. In a small number of vaccinated persons, the vaccine won’t work. This generally happens when there is an inadequate immune response to the vaccine (driven by biological chance or a suppressed immune system) or because the person’s immune system is compromised at the time of infection and unable to response despite the vaccine.
Let’s say this happened to your child – they were vaccinated against measles, but it just didn’t work. If every other child in their class was vaccinated, their risk of contracting measles is still very low – because no one else in their class would have measles due to the vaccination. If however, several kids in their class weren’t vaccinated because their parents didn’t understand this concept, they could catch measles, and measles can be fatal. This is called “herd immunity.” It’s ok if a small percentage of people fail to develop immunity following vaccinations, as long as the rate of vaccination is high among their peers.
“I still haven’t read one good reason for hepb shot , and the ‘vitamin’ k shot at birth. Other than to thwart the immmune system or constitution. The facts are that people [sic] pineal glands are being filled with fluoride which is caused by the mercury. The pineal gland is our holy grail if you like, our internal antenna.”
The author of this comment clearly has no background in science. The reasons for the hepatitis B vaccine (hepb) and vitamin K shot at birth are self-explanatory. Fluoride does not “fill” your pineal gland – if you take too much of it, it goes into your bones. We are not sure if they are inferring that mercury “causes” fluoride (that makes no sense), or if it causes fluoride to “fill” your pineal gland – which it does not. The pineal gland produces melatonin, which helps regulate your circadian rhythm, which we guess is like an antenna, somehow? Finally using the word “constitution” as a medical or scientific term is a classic red flag. This term means nothing at all in modern evidence-based medicine – don’t trust the opinions of anyone who uses this word incorrectly.
2) Misunderstanding data
Here are some published studies that one commenter linked to as supporting evidence of a lack of vaccines safety:
Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity. This is a cool study because in pharmacology and medicine, a classic dose-response relationship (higher dose = a greater effect) is usually taken for granted. The authors didn’t observe that here, which is SUPER interesting, but not useful as a basis for human risk assessment. Mice are not little people – data generated in mice needs to be understood mechanistically before it can inform risk.
Evidence Concerning Pertussis Vaccines and Central Nervous System Disorders, Including Infantile Spasms, Hypsarrhythmia, Aseptic Meningitis, and Encephalopathy. This is another really nice study, and it’s clear that the person who posted it didn’t read beyond the title. The authors found no link between the DPT vaccine and any of these disorders.
3) Trusting the wrong data or Confusing science and propaganda
“There is considerable evidence from human studies implicating ultrasound. Parents in the US are not being given this information.”
The author actually linked to a Chinese book on this topic available through Amazon. Literally every baby born since the 1970’s has been exposed to ultrasound – it’s perfectly safe and every doctor and scientist will tell you this, but this person is going with the opinion form a non-peer-reviewed Chinese book available for $9.99 on Amazon with the following product description:
“Ultrasound is argued, with much supporting evidence, to be the primary initiator of fetal vulnerabilities. The Bibliography lists and discusses arcane documents, previously unknown, modern, high-tech studies, conducted in modern China, surpassing Western science. These studies empirically demonstrate ultrasound disease causation.”
That is some next-level gibberish right there.
So how does this happen? Why would someone believe such a clearly untrustworthy source over pretty much every scientist and health professional in the world? This is a difficult question to answer. People likely believe clearly fake information like this for the same reasons that people believe non-scientific fake news. Many hypothesize that the desire to “know” or reinforce things they believe already drives people to ignore obviously fake information sources. Research also shows that many people have a difficult time recognizing false or biased information, especially when it comes from social media.
This topic is related to the conspiracy theory discussion from part 2: it’s important to understand that there is bias inherent in many of our information sources. As such, we should always be skeptical of any scientific information we read and seek to confirm it from unbiased sources. Peer-reviewed journals are a great source of “unbiased” data, but data published in this way is generally not written for non-scientists and can be misinterpreted by those without proper training. Other good sources include the news sites of the high end scientific journals Science and Nature, Science News, and Sciworthy. Avoid sites that are heavily politically biased in either direction.
4) Over-interpreting data
Here are a few peer-reviewed publications posted in the Facebook comments. Each is a solid study, but the person who posted these links seemed to think they “proved” that vaccines are unsafe. They do not.
B-Lymphocytes from a Population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal. There is no link between mitochondrial defects and autism, which pretty much disproves this hypothesis.
Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders. Large, well-controlled sudies consistently show no link between vaccines and autism. There is only correlation and no causation here (see below).
Transcriptomic analyses of neurotoxic effects in mouse brain after intermittent neonatal administration of thimerosal. Changes in gene expression are not necessarily adverse, and this study used thimerosal levels 20-times higher than used in vaccines.
It may surprise some people to find studies clearly looking for a connection between vaccines and autism in the published literature, but it shouldn’t. This is how science works. After Andrew Wakefield published his falsified (now withdrawn) paper claiming a link between vaccines and autism, scientists around the world have looked into the issue. Some of this data, when over interpreted or taken out of context might seem to suggest a link between vaccines and autism, but the totality of the data tells a very clear story. Outside of the discredited work of Dr. Wakefield, there is no evidence of such a link.
5) Mistaking correlation for causation
“the exponential rise in autism linked to high rates of aluminium in the brain.”
No causal connection has been identified.
“The US has by far the highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world–higher even than many Third World nations. The US also administers the most vaccines to children under 2 years old. These issues are connected.”
Nope. Did you know that if you eat enough chocolate you will definitely win a Nobel Prize? correlation does not equal causation.
Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. There is no data at all suggesting that these antibodies cause autism.
Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? Again, a correlation without any evidence at all of a causative link between aluminum and autism.
6) Failing to recognize how data fits into the evolution of the field
This is a big one, since science evolves as more data is generated. There was a time, in the the 1990’s when much of the scientific community considered it possible that vaccines were indeed linked to autism. However, after the work by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was disproven and withdrawn from publication due to fraud, this changed. Today, you won’t find reputable scientists who believe there is any sort of ink between vaccines and autism, or who question the extremely high benefit-to-risk ratio of childhood vaccinations. Citing the work of Dr. Wakefield or early work in the field before a scientific consensus was reached is not an argument against vaccines – it’s just out of date information.
7) Not actually listening to the other side
Science should never be about winning or losing an argument. It’s about seeking truth. It is important to always be open to considering that your position may be incorrect, and even more so if that position is held by the vast majority of experts in a particular field. Unfortunately, some people are just not ready to listen:
“Lol congrats. I appreciate the response and refutation with citation. But I have many many more hahaha so I’m glad I can take these ones that you have refuted out of my list.”
So I guess this person’s plan is just to keep on lining up “evidence” to support his side without considering that with each refutation their position is more and more untenable?
“Considering I am currently taking my Bach of science, I think I have a tiny bit more knowledge in this area than you do. Thanks for playing! Don’t let the Door hit your ass on the way out”
This one hurts me. Every scientist starts here – you learn a little bit and think you know everything. Good scientists take the next step and realize they know very little. Then they can really learn. It doesn’t sound like this person is ready to learn just yet.
