When I encounter a REAL anti-vaxer, I generally try to ask them the following ten questions.
Now, when I say anti-vaxer, I don't mean the vaccine hesitant or those that are convinced by an anti-vax website or YouTube video. I'm referring to those who run the websites, write the books, make the videos etc.
The one's who should know better.
The one's who actually do know better.
The one's who are anti-vax, not because they don't think vaccines are safe and effective, but because they KNOW they are safe and effective. Well... most of them.
"How can that be?" You say. Well, scratch an anti-vaxer, you'll find a racist eugenicist that Dr Mengele would be proud of. It's that simple.
Image credit: Eugenics Society Poster, 1930s (Wikimedia Commons | CC BY 4.0)
The problem is, they can't admit it. Nobody would listen to them. They would have no followers and no influence. Also no $$$ from the book sales and lecture tours.
The thing is, they're proud of their stance. They'd love to admit it. So, they just need a little encouragement to do so.
Now I did say "most of them". There are some that are - well - nutcases. These will usually have a swag of conspiracy theories: The Earth is flat; Lizardmen control the world; Moon landing hoax; Bill Gates is the anti-Christ; 9/11 truthers; Birthers; 5G. It doesn't matter. Conspiracy theories are like Tim Tams: You can't stop at one. You also can't reason with them, but you can get them to admit to the other conspiracy theories. That's usually enough to discredit them a little. But for some reason Chef Pete is like Teflon when it comes to this. Maybe that says more about his followers than anything else.
The ten questions are all about anti-vaxers outing themselves for what they really are. So, often they will ignore them or avoid answering them directly. Don't let them off the hook. If they say it isn't a simple yes or no, ask why. Keep asking. Don't let them shake you. Get others to ask the same simple questions.
The first two questions are simply a way to separate the wolves from the goats. A conspiracy theorist will usually reject one or both of these, so the others become superfluous. If they reject both, then continuing further is impossible. You simply don't have a common grounding in logic and reality. Any argument will quickly devolve into either solipsism or magical thinking. You may be able to get them to admit to other conspiracy theories, which would be a win of sorts.
1. Do you accept the Scientific Method?
For some reason, we seem to have a plague of scientific-illiteracy on
social media. This is compounded by the illiterate reveling in their
illiteracy as though it's something to be proud of.
There's nothing magical about science. In fact "science' isn't a thing,
it's a discipline. Science is defined by any field of study governed by
the scientific method. Broadly speaking, Science is simply a systematic
way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent
logic to evaluate results.
Ask them: Which part of that do they disagree with? Being
thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using
consistent logic?
The scientific method has been around for over 300 years. Adherence to
the scientific method has provided us with every single technological
advancement we recognise today and has doubled our life expectancy. If
you reject the scientific method, you should forsake the computer you're
using right now, your car, electricity, flying, your ready access to
food and medicine.
There are some people who like to point to changes in scientific
opinions over time as an example of science not working when exactly
this is the opposite. Following the scientific method requires you to
change your opinions when new data shows that opinion to be incorrect.
Sure, science has been proven wrong, but it's always by better science
and not because of some fanciful dogmatic idea that someone had. It was
because the evidence lead in a different direction and scientists - as a
body - moved in that direction.
2. Do you accept the Germ Theory of Disease?
Adherence to the Scientific Method lead to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time: Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory of disease. It remains one of the greatest scientific lay-down miseres of all time with an overwhelming body of irrefutable proof. Prior to this it was thought that "Miasmas" were responsible for disease. Miasma theory posited that diseases were the product of environmental
factors such as contaminated water, foul air, and poor hygienic
condition rather than from microorganisms. So, when an antivaxer starts spouting these reasons, then they probably deny Germ Theory as well. This is why they reject vaccines, because if vaccines DID actually work, then they'd have to accept Germ Theory.
If you get a yes to both questions, then you can proceed on. Most likely, you'll have a eugenicist. So the trick is to get a straight answer without sounding dogmatic or manichaean. Don't tell them they have to give a yes or now answer, ask them why they can't. Probe every reason and sub reason. If they get angry or complain, ask them why it's such a big deal. If they still don't, restate the question as "So, you don't know if xxx is true (or false)". They don't like to say they don't know something, so they'll usually say "Yes, I do know" which you follow up with "Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?"
3. Do you think the Earth is overpopulated?
This one is easy. Most (if not all) will say yes. It means little, but it builds a foundation to follow. One they can't backtrack on or use as an excuse later, because the admitted it. Also, it gets them used to them saying yes and you moving on like it's no big deal - which at this stage it isn't.
4. Do you think the only way to survive as a species is to drastically reduce our population in a short period of time?
This should come easily as well. For most eugenicists, this is THEIR argument. The one THEY own, which they use with their indoctrinated sheep later on.
But they may smell a rat here. So you made need to spend a little time in clarification. Perhaps you may need to reword it to their liking. You may even ask them to reword it. After all, you don't want to create a strawman.
5. Do you agree that the statement "Survival of the fittest?" should apply to humanity as well as the animal kingdom.
This is another eugenicist article of faith. However, at this point they'll probably smell a rat and start looking for the exit. Don't let them. Hang on and reword it to their liking if necessary.
6. Do you think that we are generally weaker and less healthy than we were 200 years ago?
It would be extremely difficult for a anti-vaxer to say no to this question after saying yes to the preceding ones. If they say no, then why are we healthier? because of modern medicine of course!
The answer is actually no. We live twice as long, suffer less and no longer die from simple things. To say we were healthier back then ignores survivor bias.Thing of all the illnesses you've suffered in your life, accidents you had, operations etc. Without modern medicine, would you be alive or dead right now?
7. Do you think that modern medicine has contributed to weakening the gene pool?
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. At the core of the eugenicist argument is that by culling the weak, those that are left have healthier genes and only they go on to reproduce. This is the crux of their argument. Since eugenicists do have a core of like-minded believers, they can't say no or even prevaricate. Whereas a yes won't mean very much to the sheep, it provides the solid ground for the remaining questions.
8. Do you think that childhood vaccines and other health interventions in children have allowed weaker children that normally would have died to grow up and reproduce?
This question follows from the last as night follows day. But this is the big one that will rock the sheep.
If they say yes, they admit that vaccines actually work. If they didn't, then 'weaker' children wouldn't survive these diseases. This is actually the opposite of what they imply to their followers.
Have fun in this space.
9. Do you think that some racial groups have better, stronger genetics than others?
This simply also follows on Q7. If ALL health is genetic, then some races are naturally healthier, smarter, better than others. It's simply a logical extension of racial theory and eugenics.
Hang around in anti-vax echo chambers for long enough and you will see a lot of casual racism, espcially anti-semitism.It's vile and disgusting, but there for the faithful to see and ignore.
If you can handle it, and don't call them out on it, they you'll see more and more of it from these cryptofascists.
10 Do you think that allowing children to get childhood diseases (which some may die from) will improve the overall health of the gene pool?
If you've managed to get this far: congratulations! You've done better than me. These oxygen-thieves are smart enough to ignore this question (usually). If you can get them to admit to this question, you have proof they are a eugenicist.
Scratch an anti-vaxer, you'll find a racist eugenicist that wants your children to die.
There's a huge amount of misinformation floating around about COVID-19 and in particular, the AstraZeneca vaccine and the issue of blood clots. Media reporting is partly to blame for simultaneously sensationalising and glossing over important information. So I thought it was about time to present the facts of the issue. I will source all statements made, if I miss anything out - let me know.
I'll add a caveat here: I'm not a medical expert. Don't get medical advice from social media or even blogs like mine. Go to your doctor. What I've done is glean what I can from the information that is publicly available. I may be wrong on many points, so apply a good deal of critical thinking to what I've written here as you should to any information that is presented to you: particularly if it claims to be authoritative.
COVID-19 Vaccines in general
There are currently four vaccines that are authourised for use in preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infections. Technically, they are in phase IV global post-licensure surveillance. They are:
Pzifer-BioNTech (mRNA)
Moderna (mRNA)
J&J/Janssen (viral vector)
Oxford/AstraZeneca (viral vector)
Other vaccines are in different stages of development. Most of these will not make it into public release. Now that there are already vaccines in production and distribution, any vaccines further developed will have to demonstrate they are better than those currently available. Not listed is the Chinese based Sinovac vaccine called CoronaVac and the Russian Gamaleya (Sputnik V) vaccine. Both of these vaccines use traditional production techniques making them cheap to produce but they have poor effectiveness profiles. Many third world countries have opted to use them, but not a single western nation has.
The numbers change daily. You can follow the progress of vaccine candidates here. For those who claim the vaccines haven't been tested, download the daily R&D blueprint and check any trial link you link. Thousands of clinical trials for safety & effectiveness have been and are being conducted.
Oxford-AstraZeneca (AZ) Vaccine
The method used to provoke an immune response is called "viral vector'. It uses a modified version of a different virus - called the vector. This vector is injected intramuscularly and enters the cells of the muscle. From there, the vector manufactures a spike protein identical to that found uniquely on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. The cell then displays the protein on its surface. Our immune system recognises it shouldn't be there and triggers an immune response targeted at the spike protein. Since the body is fighting an 'infection', we have the usual symptoms that accompany an immune response. This includes injection site pain, fever, lethargy, feeling 'sick' etc. However these are immune response reactions, not an actual disease. Different people will have different responses. source
At the end of the process, our bodies have learnt how to protect us against this infection. Effectiveness after two vaccines vary according to the variant encountered. Certainly, this vaccine is much less effective than the Pfzer vaccines (>90%). However, best data to date shows at worst it is 61.7% effective (UK B117 variant) and at best it is 81.5%, with the average being 77.3%. source
A recently published paper in The Lancet is a little more critical, estimating the effectiveness at 67%.
Blood Clots
Once the AZ vaccine was being administered globally, reports started emerging of blood clots at an significant uptick over the background rate. In about 1 in 4 of these, death was the result.
It's important to clarify something here as a sidebar. When you administer a medication to millions of people, large numbers will have 'something' medical happen to them over the month following the administration of the medication. People will have heart attacks, strokes, embolisms etc. that have nothing to do with the administration of the medication. However we do have a good idea of the general rate at which these events occur. In fact, your life insurance company can tell you the percentage chance of any medical event happening to you over the next year. It's quite a well studied science. This is why all adverse events that happen following vaccination are reported. This reporting is mandatory and the reports are publicly available and searchable. In Australia, it is the DAEN (Database of Adverse Events Notification). In the United states it is VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). Researchers compare adverse events with the rate that normally occurs. When there is an 'uptick' in an event, it is investigated. In the case of serious events, they are all investigated thoroughly as a public health measure.
At first, since the number was very low, there was skepticism that the AZ vaccine was the cause as vaccines have never been known to cause blood clots. Vaccines are injected intramuscularly not intravenously and have not direct connection with blood.
From the investigations, however, the AZ vaccine has been identified as the likely cause in over 100 cases. From these numbers, it is likely the incidence of a blood clot from the AZ vaccine is about 1 in 1 million. The phase III clinical trials involved 20,000 people who received the vaccine. Blood clots were not observed in any of the participants.
UPDATE 30 Sep 2021: We have a lot more data on the incidence. With increased surveillance for TTS, including very minor instances (headaches, thigh soreness etc) there have been 125 reported cases in Australia out of 9.6 million vaccinations. This makes the chance of a blood clot 1 in 76,800. Now, that's a lot higher than one in a million, but remember, these include minor cases. Of those 125 people, 8 people died, six of them women. This is a mortality rate of 1 in 1.2 million. Certainly much better than catching COVID, but since there is an alternative, if you are female and under 50, definitely don't get the AZ vaccine, get the Pfizer or Moderna instead. See ‘Weighing up the potential benefits against risk of harm from COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca’
How can the AstraZeneca vaccine cause blood clots?
So far, experts do not know, however there are some conjectures. Foremost amongst these is that in rare cases, the vaccine also induces and immune reaction against a protein found in blood platelets. On the sniff factor, this sounds (at least) like a good explanation.
Patients with blood clots were found to have antibodies against Platelet Factor 4 (PF4) which is a symptom of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. So it may be the case that those patients have this disease already, but it is undiagnosed and the vaccine triggers this response. People are only tested for this if they present to hospital with a blood clot. Blanket testing of people would be pointless because of false positives according to Baye's Theorem.
However, everything is still conjecture at the moment. The reality is that we don't know if it is the adenovirus (the vector) or the spike protein is linked to the clots.
What do we know?
In simplistic bullet point form, this is everything we do know:
It occurs at a rate of approximately 1 in 76,800 1 million people
It mostly affects women under 55
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is more common in
women than men and less likely to be diagnosed at a young age.
Blood clots are a symptom of COVID-19. You are far more likely to get a blood clot from COVID-19 than from the AZ vaccine.
Taking the AZ vaccines is certainly safer than getting COVID-19 by several orders of magnitude. Millions of people have died from COVID-19 compared to the 25 people that have died probably because of the AstraZeneca vaccine. In addition, antivaxers are lying about adverse reactions by posting fake testimonials to social media. People inundated with hundreds of personal stories may find it compelling, but the reality is that this vaccine is still far safer than not only most other medical interventions, but safer than most daily activities such as driving and eating.
It's only natural to be concerned about risks we hear about in the media regularly or on social media, particularly for activities we don't regularly undertake. But in reality, if you are concerned about the risk of taking the AZ vaccine: Don't fly in a plane, don't drive a car and don't take paracetamol. All of these have higher risk profiles by several orders of magnitude.
However, if we are looking at the risk of taking the AZ vaccine compared to the Pfizer vaccine, then yes. Take the Pfizer vaccine anytime. The Pfizer vaccine will knock you around more - many people need a day or two off work after having it. But its effectiveness is MUCH higher and serious adverse event reports do not statistically exceed the background rate (despite what you facebook group might say).
Achieving Herd Immunity
Besides protecting the individual, the purpose of vaccines is to reduce the R(Eff) rate below 1. For COVID-19, R0=2.4. Herd Immunity (s) = 1-1/R0 = 58.33%.
This means that we need to vaccinate 87% of the population with the AZ vaccine, or 62% of the population with the Pfizer vaccine. However, the higher the rate the better. Anything below these numbers will lead to outbreaks. Leaving children out of the equation (no COVID-19 vaccine has been certified for paediatric use) then it is impossible to achieve herd immunity with the AZ vaccine.
Before reading further you need to ask yourself two questions:
1) Do I accept the scientific method?
2) Do I accept the Germ Theory of Disease?
If the answer to any of the above two questions is no, then you may as well stop reading now. There is simply nothing I can do for you if you are wilfully illiterate when it comes to science. I'm sorry, but ignorance of science is not an argument against it. Before having an opinion about science, you need to go back and revisit primary school science. Not high school - primary school.
If the answer is yes to both, then you will probably find the following to be quite obvious, so why am I writing all this down?
Good question.
The answer is that an argument unanswered continues to be argued. Even stupid, idiotic, completely brain dead arguments that anyone with a primary school understanding of science should be able to answer. So, here and now, all the asinine Coronavirus-denialist arguments I've come across will be thoroughly and completely debunked.
In short, if you accept the scientific method and the germ theory of disease, there is not a single scrap of evidence to support the politically motivated denialism that abounds.
So let's start with some background information before we take the deep dive into tinfoil hat hell.
Transmissibility and Exponential growth
Most people are pretty bad at understanding exponential growth. There's an old Chinese proverb about an Emperor asking his servant what he would like his reward to be. The servant replied "Just place one grain of rice on a chess square and double that for each squar on the board." The emperor agreed because he thought this was very cheap, however he found out that this would be more rice than all of China had, so instead he executed the servant.
Disease spreads according to the mathematical rules of exponential growth and decay. The speed of this growth or decay is called the exponent - or the 'R' factor. For steady state growth, R=1. For exponential growth, R>1 and for exponential decay R<1.
The base rate for a virus is known as the R0. This can and is modified by external factors. Some of these factors are common to most viruses, others are peculiar to a few.
Any virus with a R<1 will not propagate. It will simply die out of its own accord.
Virus with a very high value of R will propagate extremely quickly. Measles, for example, has an R0=16.
The following video is an excellent explanation of how exponential growth occurs:
Rather than explain further, I'm going to assume that you've either watched the video, or you have a grasp of exponential growth and decay.
Mortality Rate
For just about any disease, the mortality rate is highly variable. When a rate is presented, this is the overall mortality rate. In other words, how many people die as opposed to those who recover as a percentage. However for individual cases, this is affected by a huge number of factors:
- the age and overall health of the patient
- access to health care and ICU
- comorbid conditions
- weather
- treatments
Sometimes these can be counter-intuitive, for example, the H1N1 Spanish Influenza had a higher mortality rate with young, fit people.
Incubation Period
This is how long from the time you are infected with a virus before you begin to show symptoms. For many diseases, you can be infectious to others during this period of time.
Debilitating Conditions
Sometimes, not dying of a disease is not a completely successful outcome. A person may have permanent disability as a result of the disease or their life expectancy may be reduced. A text book example of this is polio which, although it didn't have a high mortality rate, it left numberless people crippled for life, some surviving only via living in an iron lung.
Putting it Together
The graph below plots mortality against transmissibility (R0) for various diseases compared to COVID-19.
Since this graph was made, COVID-19 has been established to have an R0=2.4.
What is COVID-19
COVID-19 or SARS-COV-2
is a novel (meaning new to our immune systems) RNA virus from the
coronavirus family. They are named simply because of their shape, not
all coronaviruses are related.
Three types of coronavirus
are associated with what we refer to as the "common cold". They are
usually mild and almost never fatal. They tend not to mutate very much,
in fact mutations tend to die out very quickly.
Two types of coronavirus are extremely deadly. These are known as SARS and MERS. Fortunately, both of these viruses have a relatively low R0 and were contained locally.
So enough background material, now to the pseudoscientific claims...
"It's just a flu"
Influenza is a family of viruses that are closely related. They are two major divisions: Influenza 'A' and Influenza 'B'. The B types are usually mild flus by can also be the dreaded '24 hour' flu. The A types are more common and are in turn classified by HnNk classification system. These are the bad seasonal flus that usually have a low but significant mortality rate in the order of 0.1%.
The flu is considered seasonal because of its low R0 of 1.4. Warm weather, reduced physical content and improved immune systems in summer reduce the R0 to below 1.
Influenza 'A' is an amazingly adaptable virus. It exists in birds, pigs and humans and jumps back and forwards between species. This is why flu types are also named by the species they originate from.
Our bodies know the flu pretty well. Even with changes to its genome, we're pretty good at creating antibodies for it within a short period of time. When we catch the flu, we often get over it in a week or two.
COVID-19 is a novel virus. Our bodies haven't seen it before and it takes time to adapt. Most people take a minimum of 3 - 4 weeks to recover from it. Also, the mortality rate is much, much higher than the seasonal flu.
The second factor is that for some reason we don't understand yet, nearly 80% of people are asymptomatic carriers. The majority of these are those younger than 50. The mortality rate for those over 70 is over 20%. This means people can be carrying and spreading the disease without knowing it.
"The death rate isn't that high"
To calculate the death rate, you look at the number of people that have died against those who have recovered, not the number of people that still have the disease. When you do that, you get a figure between 1% and 10%.
Part of that reason is the amount of testing that is done. Some areas don't test asymptomatic people, so that will tend to inflate the death rate. Other areas test everybody, which tends to lower the apparent death rate, so you need to look at the positive rate for comparison. Some locations - like Italy - have aging populations which bump up their rate a little.
All testing methodologies have both a small false positive and false negative rate. When the case load is high, this false positives and negatives become statistically negligible. However when there are very few instances of the disease, they can max out the statistics. There is a statistical method called Bayes' Theorem that is used to account for and correct these anomalies. As an aside note, I have used Bayes' Theorem in my work in developing ways of identifying spam emails. It's an extremely useful and highly accurate statistical tool.
First world health care is also very good at reducing mortality - as long as the system is not overloaded. The European (and potentially the American) experience has shown that when the health system is overloaded and ICU beds are not available, the mortality rate rises dramatically. But this is not all, if the health system is overloaded and you have a life threatening medical emergency such as a heart attack or car accident, an ambulance may not be available, or there may be no ICU beds or surgeons to treat you and you may die as result. Your death won't be recorded as a COVID-19 death, but you'll die nonetheless.
UPDATE: 26 Aug 2021
I was recently challenged on the death rate with the claim that the mortality had dropped to less than 0.1%. So I crunched the numbers again, this time differentiating between the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) and the Case Fatality Rate (CFR). I've pasted a screenshot of the spreadsheet here.
Consistently, the fatality rate is between 1% and 9%, with the majority between 1 and 3%. The list of reasons for variation between countries is too long to go into in this snippet, but there are a few standouts. When a country's health system is overwhelmed, that's when the death rate tends to shoot up - when no ICU beds are available. Countries with Universal Health Care tend to do better than countries that don't. Third-world countries tend to do worse.
Israel's figures also show an interesting trend. One of the few countries that is mostly vaccinated, the majority of cases are amongst the vaccinate, but nearly all the sever cases are amongst the unvaccinated. So while vaccination may not prevent you from getting COVID, it will prevent you from having a serious case.
The data on Israel is very early, however, and it does seem to indicate that protection falls off quicker than expected. Those vaccinated in January are over represented in the number of cases, so a booster shot at six months might be required rather than waiting twelve months as is typical.
"It's not that bad"
For nearly 80% of people, it's not bad at all - in fact, most don't even know they have it. This is called "survivor bias". A moderate number have mild symptoms, but a significant number have severe symptoms. Now "severe' means hospitalisation. When was the last time you were hospitalised for the flu? Never?
If you are hospitalised for coronavirus, you are very sick. You may need intubation - something very unpleasant. You will most likely carry some form of permanent impairment - reduced lung capacity, heart or liver damage. You may never be able to physically exert yourself ever again. You may have your life expectancy reduced by ten years. You may live the rest of your life in chronic pain.
But then again, you may be one of the 80%. Do you want to take that gamble?
"Masks don't work"
There are three types of masks to consider:
- surgical masks
- N95 & KN95 masks
- cloth masks
Surgical masks are designed to protect the 'other person' and not yourself. If you have coronavirus, wearing a surgical mask reduces transmissibility by 75%. So, its a bit like having third party insurance. If everybody has it, everybody is protected. However testing has shown surgical masks do offer some level of protection to you in the order of 5% - so they aren't ineffective.
N95/KN95 masks are designed to protect you. They are more expensive and must be fitted with a tight seal to be fully effective. The '95' means that 95% of particles of 3 microns or larger are filtered out. COVID-19 is between 2 & 3 microns in size. This doesn't mean the masks don't work, just that they don't filter out 95%. Testing has shown the mask filters approximately 60% of COVID-19 viruses.
Cloth masks are less effective than either surgical or N95 masks. Properly made, they will filter up to 50% of COVID-19 viruses. To be properly made, they must have three layers, with the innermost layer made of cotton, and the inner layer made of polypropylene. They should be washed regularly.
"Masks build up CO2"
No, they don't. This argument is absurd and extremely easy to test.
Put on a mask and put your finger in an O2 optical measurement device. Several doctors have demonstrated that even wearing multiple masks does not reduce Oxygen saturation. If this was a problem, surgeons would have been dropping dead like flies for years now.
"America's Frontline Doctors" (added 30 July)
Where to to start with this one? The TLDR is this video is one of the biggest deliberate frauds/hoaxes I've ever seen.
In this viral video, you see a doctor standing in front of the US Supreme Court steps claiming
that “you don’t need masks” because “there is a cure” for the
coronavirus.
The speaker, Stella Immanuel, says that she is a doctor and that she
practiced in Nigeria. That much checks out: a person of that name does have a medical licence on file with the state of Texas, and the licence states that she got her medical degree from a university in Nigeria.
She
says that she has treated 350 patients with COVID-19, given them all a
regimen of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and the antibiotic Zithromax, and
that none have died. We don’t have any way of judging whether this is
true; she hasn’t released any data that lifehacker has been abled to find.
“You don’t need masks,” she says. This is wrong; masks are imperfect but extremely helpful in protecting us from giving the coronavirus to each other.
Immanuel claims that a paper about hiccups “proves” that the NIH knows hydroxychloroquine “cures” COVID-19. But the paper
is no proof of a cure. It states that a patient had hiccups and was
positive for COVID-19, and that the patient felt well enough to be
released from the hospital a few days later. The authors’ conclusion is
that doctors should consider COVID-19 as a possible diagnosis for
patients with hiccups or with other unusual symptoms. Yes, the patient
was treated with hydroxychloroquine while in the hospital, but from this
paper we can’t say if that actually helped or if he would have done
just as well without it.
The truth is that hydroxychloroquine has been used a lot in the last few months. The first trials that put it in the news had serious flaws,
but doctors around the world often chose to give it a try. It’s
(normally) an easily available drug, with known side effects that are
often mild to manageable. Immanuel says she used it to treat malaria in
Nigeria, and it’s true that the drug is commonly used for this. Its use
for malaria and for other conditions like lupus is why the drug is so
widely available and its side effects well known.
On her social media profiles, Stella Immanuel has shared other misinformation, including a claim
that the coronavirus vaccine “will fuse with your own genes and modify
your genetic makeup,” which is not a thing any of the vaccines in
development are designed nor, as far as anyone knows, remotely able to
do. The Daily Beast has more on her past statements about health, including the idea that gynecological problems are caused by having sex in one’s dreams with demons. She also claims that scientists are developing a vaccine to make you an atheist and modern medical treatments contain alien DNA. And if you look at her twitter feed, you can see she isn't exactly playing with a full deck.
There's something to be said for taking a job lot. If someone's obviously crazy with some things, that tends to dilute what they have to say about others - no matter what their level of conviction. In fact, ESPECIALLY if they are heavily convicted. At the very least, skepticism of what they say should be very high.
She claims masks are unnecessary and she and all her medical staff take
Hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, but she wears a mask in her
videos promoting her Fire Power Ministry -- just not when she's trying
to influence public health policy. Among her Fire Power Ministry
services are conversion therapy and removing generational curses from
your placenta.
When you search for her clinic, it shows her religious gift shop in a
strip mall. In her posts and videos, she Photoshops her clinic sign
over the actual sign next door. She "runs" another clinic in Katy, TX
out of an aged care home but again the sign says it's her ministry.
Each
doctor in the video is wearing a white coat with an "America's Frontline
Doctors" logo. They are organized by the "Tea Party Patriots". AFD's
site was created right before the video, on July 16, less than two weeks
ago, so Breitbart could say, "We're here with America's frontline
doctors." Not exactly an established group. The AFD site runs out of
that strip mall. The listed phone number leads to a website called
"Southern Flare [sic] Urgent Care" with another photoshopped clinic
encouraging anyone with COVID to pay for virtual treatment.
Incidentally, their website (hosted at squarespace) has already expired.
In
the video, she says she's saving the lives of patients who are about to
die from COVID-19. On her page, she says she accepts patients with mild
cases.
She set up a GoFundMe for any future legal issues she may have.
Dr. Simone Gold, with America's Frontline Doctors, claimed to be
affiliated with Centinela Hospital (they have confirmed she is not a
current staff member), and inferred she was affiliated with Cedars-Sinai
ER -- who has clarified that she is not.
Dr. Gold has 4 reviews, at least one of which was made today and simply thanks her for being so "brave" in the video.
Dr. Jeff Barke is a QAnon conspiracy theorist who was busted in a drug
sting. He is affiliated with an online school that was recently sued
for fraud and was under investigation for preying on seniors. He's a
member of a group that funds Republican candidates, and the Orange
County Republican Central Committee. He said COVID-19 is no more
dangerous than the flu, when US flu deaths are at 34,000/year and US
COVID-19 deaths are at 150,000.
Dr. Barke founded a religious
charter school using right-wing curriculum developed by Betsy
DeVos-linked Hillsdale College. A charter school PAC gave his wife's
campaign $245,000.
In short - can you possibly not consider this video as anything more than an elaborate fraud designed to push misinformation?
The fact that this "news conference" had more speakers than
attendees was of little matter. Livestreamed by the far-right website
Breitbart News, the video spread quickly, initially through
conservative, anti-vaccination and government conspiracy groups. Within
hours, it had reached over 20 million Facebook users.
As previously mentioned, the event
was hosted and funded by the Tea Party Patriots, led by Jenny Beth Martin, the group's co-founder, who
spoke at the news conference.
Tea Party Patriots have been critical of measures enacted to slow the
spread of the coronavirus. Before America's Frontline Doctors, the
group launched the Second Opinion Project, a website that hosted videos
of doctors attacking state and local coronavirus efforts.
Videos
from supposed experts bucking public health consensus have been a
recurring brand of misinformation during the pandemic. In April, viral videos
were eventually removed from Facebook and YouTube of two doctors in
Bakersfield, California, downplaying the risk of the coronavirus and
spreading a conspiracy theory about doctors purposefully misattributing
unrelated deaths to the coronavirus. Dan Erickson, one of the two
doctors in the clip, spoke at Monday's news conference.
In May, a "Plandemic" video
from a discredited scientist promoting conspiracy theories about the
coronavirus and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, drew 8 million views before it was
removed.
Whatever happens to the video, the myths in it will continue to
circulate because they are attractive. It tells us, falsely, that masks
are unneeded, that lockdowns are unnecessary, and that there is a
surefire cure for COVID-19 that the government is covering up. This is
all clearly, obviously false, and these myths were circulating long
before this specific video. They’re still as wrong as ever.
To believe this, you have to ignore all the evidence and believe in a global conspiracy involving all the doctors and nurses in the world conspiring to ... achieve what exactly?
If you accept this, then I'm afraid you are a candidate for mental health intervention.
Delta Update (17th/18th August 2021)
The new Delta strain, which originated in India has completely changed the game for coronavirus. At first, it was estimated that the delta strain had an R0=5. Now, the estimates are for an R0=9!!!
That is insanely high. The only other virus I'm aware of with that high an R0 is the measles. Assuming that vaccines confer 90% immunity, then in reality we need 98.7% of people vaccinated for herd immunity. That is never going to happen.
There are two possibilities: a third shot as a booster to increase immunity beyond 90%, or a mixture of vaccinated and naturally immune (through catching and recovering from COVID.
We also have some sobering data from Israel - which has a nearly fully vaccinated population. Because of their high vaccination rates, Israel has opened up pretty much completely. But now that the Delta strain has hit, cases are rising dramatically - even amongst the vaccinated. In fact, particularly amonsgt the vaccinated.
If the data from Israel is correct, those vaccinated in January have an immunity below 50%. Those since January have a much higher level of immunity.
Now, this could be a limitation of the Pfizer vaccine. There's no evidence the other vaccines have this level of reduced immunity to Delta, however, we don't know.
The other side is that although most of the infected have been vaccinated, most of the serious cases are amongst the unvaccinated and nearly all of the ICU cases are unvaccinated. So, the Israeli approach is "Meh. We'll stay open."
The rationale being that although the vaccine's effectiveness in preventing infections has dropped, it's effectiveness in reducing the symptoms and the severity of COVID-19 is still close to 100%. Some may argue this is a better outcome as the mild infection will now confer close to 100% of future infections, but this remains to be seen. We simply don't have enough data yet.
That's probably enough for now. I know this is a little snarky, but I'll only suffer fools for so long. I'll add more as I'm reminded of more 'objections' and source it up better. I still have to write up why social distancing and quarantining are important measures, but I'll finish up with an explanation of Aatish Bhatia's COVID-19 excellent data analysis.
The Holy Grail of anti-vaxers is the string of people who say "My child was injured by Vaccines". There's a constant stream of tragic and deeply personal stories of children with often horrific and permanent disabilities. Who couldn't be moved by such tales? Who would be so callous as to question the causation, medical diagnosis or motives of the suffering parents?
Such discussions are the kryptonite of any rational discussion of vaccine safety. If vaccines are so safe, why so many stories of vaccine injured children? Why is there a vaccine court in the United States? Why is there so much opposition to vaccines on the basis of safety?
A discussion on vaccine safety is a complex one that needs to be broken down into constituent parts. It's important because there are only two issues that really matter when it comes to any medical intervention: safety and effectiveness. They can't be dealt with separately because they are interrelated through a process called Risk Management.
Risk Management & Clinical Trials
To start with, there is no such thing as 100% safety in any medical intervention. Paracetamol is not 100% safe, driving your car is not 100% safe, eating your lunch is not 100% safe. This is why medical interventions are not taken unless they exceed the risk for NOT making the intervention. This is where effectiveness comes into play.
All medicines undergo phases of clinical trial with many sub-phases. This applies to vaccines as well. Part of this (where possible) includes what is known as "double blind crossover" trials. This is where half of the recipients receives the vaccine (or medicine) and the other half receives an inert placebo (the control group). In some studies, there may be several medications tested against a single control group. In others, the control group may be smaller.
Neither the patient or those involved in the trial know who has received what. During the trial both effectiveness and adverse events are recorded. Once the trial has completed, the details as to who received what is revealed and the results are compared. If the treatment was no more effective than a placebo, then it was not effective. The adverse events are also checked to see if there is a statistical difference between the control group and the active group.
Typically, a Phase II trial will include around 100 participants. A Phase III trial will be much larger. There may be several such Phase II & III trials with all trials requiring mandatory reporting. In general, the larger the number of trial participants, the more accurate the data is. As an example, here are the results for one of the adverse event Phase II trials for Gardasil:
Yes, you read that right, "Traffic accident" is included as an adverse event.
In some cases a trial may be tainted by other factors and excluded from the overall results as an anomaly. An example of this is found in the manufactroversy in the movie Vaxxed - but I digress.
After a medicine is released, trials do not end. They continue into Phase IV and sometimes Phase V trials (longitudinal studies).
Vaccines are in a special case. This is partly because we are generally dealing with paediatric vaccines, but it's also because we are dealing with no pre-existing conditions. So, for a vaccine to be licenced, not only must it be safe, it must be very, very safe!
VAERS & DAEN
Vaccines are also unique in that there is a mandatory reporting system for ALL adverse events whether caused by the vaccine or not. The reporting system both in Australia and in the United States is open to everyone - not just medical professionals. Both databases are publicly searchable. In Australia it is called the Database of Adverse Event Notifications or DAEN. In the United States it is called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS. The DAEN was recently expanded to include all medicines and medical devices. Contrary to what you may have heard, both databases:
- Are not censored or filtered in any way
- Are simply reportings of adverse events that happened after the vaccination - whatever the cause
That's right. They may not even be connected. Car accidents and broken bones have been listed as adverse events. One of the more well-known examples of how any unrelated event can make it into VAERS was Dr. James Laidler’s report that the influenza vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk.
As an example, here are the results for the M-M-R II vaccine for 2018 in Australia according to DAEN.
So, for the administrations in Australia for this vaccine for the year, there were 170 reports. Of which, 49 could be attributed to the vaccine. Perusing the list, most of these are very minor events. The events of one or two reported cases go for another page and a half. For brevity, they aren't listed, but you can search them yourself.
Both databases are carefully monitored. Any uptick in an adverse event against the background rate OR the rate predicted by the clinical trials is carefully investigated. It's always possible that a side-effect below the rate predictable by clinical trials is possible.
NVICP - The United States Vaccine Court
"So, why is there a Vaccine Court if vaccines are so safe?"
Unlike Australia (and most of the Rest Of The World), The United States has no universal health care. Vaccines are manufactured by drug companies for a profit, however that profit is quite small compared to other medicines. So small, in fact, that the companies manufacturing the vaccines consider it part of their public duty.
Through the 1970s and 1980s, the number of lawsuits brought against
vaccine manufacturers increased dramatically, and manufacturers made
large payouts to individuals and families claiming vaccine injury,
particularly from the combined diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT)
immunization. In this environment of increasing litigation, mounting
legal fees, and large jury rewards, many pharmaceutical companies left
the vaccine business. In fact, by the end of 1984, only one U.S. company
still manufactured the DPT vaccine, and other vaccines were losing
manufacturers as well.
In response, In 1988 the US Government setup the National Vaccine Industry Compensation Program (NVICP). It was funded by an 75c per vaccine excise tax. At the time, the number of vaccines administered wasn't as high as today and it was assumed there would be large numbers of successful claimants.
The NVICP didn't stop people from suing drug companies for vaccine injuries, but it was made a far more attractive route to do so for the following reasons:
- It was essentially free. No out of pocket expenses.
- The burden of proof is very, very low. In fact, you didn't even have to prove the vaccine caused the injury. All you had to do was show that your child contracted the condition after the vaccine was administered and that is was POSSIBLE for the vaccine to have caused the injury.
With such a low burden of proof, surely there must be huge numbers of payouts. The reality is that the number of payouts is very, very low. In fact:
almost 80% of all compensated awards by the NVICP come as a “result
of a negotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not
concluded, based upon review of the evidence, that the alleged
vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury.”
the NVICP cases are published by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
so all information is disclosed to the public and no safety concerns are
hidden.
The NVICP is awash with money. So much so it doesn't know what to do with it. Vaccine manufacturers are keen to settle rather that fight it as it doesn't cost them any money to do so. Plaintiffs lawyers are also keen to settle. Judges are keen to hand over large sums of money to ease the financial burdens on parents with no adequate health care. So, even in the face of this there are fewer than 1 in 1 million claims against this gravy train.
What the vaccine court shows is that vaccine injuries are very, very rare. SourceSource
Do Vaccine Injuries occur?
Yes they do, for a very small number of conditions. Most of these are related to specific side effects of individual vaccines that are extremely rare. The standout, however is allergic reaction including anaphalaxis and febrile convulsions. Any child who has such a reaction is contra-indicated and medically exempt from vaccinations. Usually the reaction is due to one of the vaccine components such as the adjuvent, rather than the vaccine itself.
The good thing about the NVICP is that it gives us some concrete data to work with. The percentage of petitions to actual vaccines administered is
0.016%. One one-hundredth of one percent of cases of
vaccination have resulted in a petition being filed.
The percentage of compensations to actual vaccines administered is
0.003%. Three one-THOUSANDTHS of one percent of cases of vaccination
have resulted in compensation for injury.
I don’t know about you, but a safety rating of 99.997% seems really great to me!
Additionally, the NVICP claims are not limited to children, and the above calculations are by person, not by injection, so the actual
safety rate is significantly higher than 99.997%. If you included all
adult vaccinations, and counted number of injections rather than number
of vaccinated persons, you’d get something that probably looks like
99.99999% of child and adult vaccinations resulting in no
serious adverse events.
Let’s put those safety statistics into perspective. Your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 572, or .17%, or 58 times greater than experiencing an adverse event from a vaccine. Each year, 80 people die from choking on food, accounting for 11% of deaths in children under eight.
Or, to put in another way: On the day a child is vaccinated, you feed them, drive them to the doctor and the doctor administers the vaccination. Of these three things, the safest is receiving the vaccination.
The Bottom Line – vaccines are safe, and save lives.
But... what about those testimonials!
Many people will claim that any of a dozen injuries are caused by vaccines. They generally do so without any evidence. However vaccine injury stories have become the sacred cow of the anti-vax movement. You are expected to believe parents at face value and questioning them opens you to accusations of being cruel and callous. Regardless, some basic questions must be asked:
May I ask why you are so sure it was the vaccine?
Has it been medically confirmed?
Was anything else going on at the time?
Before the vaccine was invented, did this condition exist?
What caused these conditions before the vaccine was invented?
Could it be possible that these things are causing them now?
What is the likelihood that the vaccine caused it versus something else?
Childhood vaccines are administered according to a scientifically designed schedule that maximises protection and immunity and minimises risk. This means vaccines are administered at 2, 4, 6, 12 & 18 months intervals. It is during this time that a child is most susceptible to a variety of child onset diseases that can be congenital, hereditary or have no known causes of onset.
The likelihood of autism, SIDS, SSPE, developmental delay etc occurring or being detected around the time of vaccination is more likely than not. It is not unusual for a parent to look for causes and decide that vaccinations MUST be the cause because it occurred after vaccination. This is the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc or literally "after the event, therefore because of the event". For example: The sun rose, the shed fell down, therefore the sun knocked the shed down.
One event happening after an event does not necessarily cause the event. Correlation does not equal causation.
YouTube videos are also presented to as “evidence” of
vaccine injury, but they are not proof of anything either. Anecdotal
reports – VAERS, DAEN, YouTube, rumours, a friend’s cousin’s hairdresser’s
aunt’s version of events – they’re all unreliable. And so is an
unqualified and inexperienced parent trying to make medical diagnosis
without really understanding the process – no matter how earnest and well-meaning they are.
Real vaccine injuries are recorded. You or your doctor can
report the injury and if it’s serious, so begins a public health
investigation. They are not overlooked. They are not covered up. If
anything, they are sought after. Vaccine safety is taken extremely
seriously by vaccine manufacturers and the medical establishment which
includes doctors, nurses, the government, and public health
professionals. Even researchers look for vaccine injury reports:
sometimes they are written up in the medical literature as a case
study.
Only after reports have been medically analysed can they be confirmed
as real vaccine injuries, and these cases contribute to official
vaccine statistics as legitimate risk of reactions.
As I have shown, when you do the real numbers, the risk of serious vaccine injury is orders of magnitude less than 1%.
Actually, most of the vaccine injuries commonly discussed
by vaccine critics have absolutely no connection to immunisations other
than coincidental timing with the administration of the vaccine. Some parents who believed that pneumonia, a middle ear
infection, a cough or cold, eczema, asthma, autism, epilepsy, and other
unrelated conditions were “vaccine injuries” simply because their child
had one of these things happen or diagnosed around the same time as
their jabs. One woman was convinced that a flu shot gave her
endometriosis. Impossible.
True vaccine injuries of a serious nature are exceptionally
rare. We know they are real when they’ve been medically confirmed or
published in peer-reviewed, credible medical journals. They are so rare we usually hear about them in the media and remember them by name. These kinds of cases should be swiftly and generously compensated.
For example, American David Salamone and Jacob McCarthy
from Australia both developed paralytic polio from the oral polio
vaccine, which is no longer administered in the United States or
Australia. Saba Button from Australia developed brain damage after ongoing febrile seizures from CSL’s
FluVax. (This vaccine has now been withheld for use in children younger
than 5)
Other cases are deemed “causation indeterminable” – but it may be possible the vaccine caused it. For example: Izzy Olesen suffered
from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after the DTaP booster. It was reported
by medical staff as a possible vaccine reaction, but causation cannot be proved.
Some events are so rare, it is impossible to determine
whether the vaccine cause it or not. Other cases are rare, but given
other information the possibility of a vaccine injury is not very
likely. For example:
The long-held myth of vaccine encephalopathy
was debunked upon the discovery of Dravet’s syndrome. But there was no
trumpeting fanfare, no viral internet sharing when this news came out.
There is a very sad case of baby Ian Gromowski
who allegedly died because of the Hepatitis B shot. However, Ian’s
mother was induced due to toxemia and pre-eclampsia which indicate a
high-risk and complicated pregnancy. Moreover, Ian had aspirated
meconium prior to birth and was born with a fever indicative of
infection. He was also allergic to an antibiotic he was given. All of
these complex medical factors surrounding his case demonstrate that he
did not die simply because of a reaction to the Hepatitis B vaccine. In
reality, it was much more complicated than that and the vaccine most
likely in fact has nothing to do with his death whatsoever.
Then there are a collection of reports known as the
“Gardasil Girls.” Their alleged injuries range from ovarian failure,
neurological conditions, meningitis, chronic fatigue, pulmonary
embolism, influenza, chronic Lyme’s disease morphing into a vaccine
injury and death. But there is no medical evidence that these are caused
by the vaccine. However, there is a mountain of scientific evidence
demonstrating the safety of the HPV vaccine. With more than 50 million doses having been given worldwide with very close safety monitoring, we know that this vaccine is safe.
In fact, when you review the evidence, the rates of major
events of concern, namely Guillain-Barre syndrome, autoimmune disorders,
transverse myelitis, and death, were all exceedingly rare, and not
above what one would expect to occur in the normal unvaccinated population. Gardasil does not cause premature ovarian failure. And deaths from Gardasil are a complete lie.
So why would a parent still cling to a belief when the
medical science concludes otherwise? Perhaps because the emotion
surrounding the event cements the conviction firmly in their mind and
it’s hard to undo a thought process where emotion overrules logic.
People who don’t have a real vaccine injury and
spread myths about them do a great disservice to real vaccine safety
advocates; the people who’ve had real vaccine reactions. They undo the good work that people like David Salamone’s father, John, have done. John was instrumental in lobbying the US government to switch from oral to injectable polio vaccine. He still recommends vaccines and recognizes his son’s reaction is a very rare event.
We cannot be expected to accept vaccine injury stories
without a reasonable explanation of the mechanism of harm. If you think
we should accept all stories at face value, I’m afraid you’re missing
the mark as vaccine safety advocates.
Most anti vaccine arguments consist of thought-stopping clichés. Basically a half-truth phrased in a way to provoke a visceral, emotional reaction. This one is no different:
Sounds scary!? The photo makes it look like "Human diploid cell" is an ingredient in the vaccine! Are doctors injecting my baby with aborted foetuses!?
When this claim is made it is usually referring to the Rubella component of the childhood MMR vaccine.
Some background on Vaccines
There are many types of vaccine: acellular, inactivated, live attenuated, toxoid, subunit etc. Source They all work in slightly different ways to produce the same result: An immune reaction in the host that will prepare the immune to either prevent the incidence of the disease it is protecting against or reduce the severity of it.
Regardless of type, the cell cultures must be grown in a medium that is favourable to the growth of the culture. For influenza, this is usually done in eggs as most influenza strains reproduce in birds. Note the culture is GROWN in eggs, the egg products are separated from the antigen material during production. No egg products are injected into the human body. Thus, people with egg allergies can have the flu vaccine without a reaction.
The very earliest 'vaccine' was for smallpox. It was found milkmaids that caught cowpox (a very mild disease) didn't catch smallpox. In the 1800s, a physician would make small cuts of the recipients arm and place a drop of blood from a cow infected with cowpox. The recipient would catch cowpox and gain immunity from smallpox. Over the years, the methods, techniques and the sophistication and safety of delivery mechanisms improved.
In the 1970s, the World Health Organisation set on a program to innoculate everyone on the planet at risk for small pox. As a result, smallpox has been eliminated and no one needs to be vaccinated against it any more - because it doesn't exist!
That is the end goal of vaccination programs everywhere. To eliminate the disease, and therefore the need to vaccinate against the disease. source
Cultivation of vaccines in animal products and live animals
Through most of the 20th century, vaccines were cultivated exclusively in animals, either by growing pathogens in live animals or by using animal cells.
Although many vaccines and anti-toxin products were successfully
developed this way, using animals in vaccine development – particularly
live animals – is not ideal. Research animals are costly and require
extensive monitoring, both to maintain their health and to ensure the
continued viability of the research. They may be carrying other bacteria
or viruses that could contaminate the eventual vaccine, as with polio
vaccines from the mid 20th century that were made with monkey
cells and eventually found to contain a monkey virus called SV40, or
Simian Virus 40. (Fortunately, the virus was not found to be harmful to
humans.) Moreover, some pathogens, such as the chickenpox virus, simply
do not grow well in animal cells.
Even when vaccine development is done using animal products and not
live animals – such as growing influenza vaccine viruses in chicken eggs
– development can be hindered or even halted if the availability of the
animal products drops. If an illness were to strike the egg-producing
chickens, for example, they might produce too few eggs to be used in the
development of seasonal flu vaccine, leading to a serious vaccine
shortage. (It’s a common misconception that influenza vaccines could be
produced more quickly if grown in cell cultures compared to using
embryonated chicken eggs. In fact, growing the vaccine viruses in cell
cultures would take about the same amount of time. However, cell
cultures do not have the same potential availability issues as chicken
eggs.)
For these and other reasons, using cell culture techniques to produce
vaccine viruses in human cell strains is a significant advance in
vaccine development.
It should be re-iterated here that the culture used to grow the antigen is not an ingredient of the vaccine. That's a bit like saying a frying pan is an ingredient of an omelette. So, vaccines grown in eggs, do not contain eggs; vaccines grown in duck livers, do not contain duck liver and of course, vaccines grown in human cell lines, do not contain human cells.
How do cell cultures work?
Cell cultures involve growing cells in a culture vessel. A primary cell
culture consists of cells taken directly from living tissue and never
subcultivated, and may contain multiple types of cells.
A cell strain is a cell culture that contains only one type
of cell in which the cells are normal and have a finite capacity to
replicate. Cell strains can be made by taking subcultures from an
original, primary culture until only one type remains.
An immortalized cell line is a cell culture of a single type of cell that can reproduce indefinitely. Normally, cells will reproduce only a finite number of times
before they cease to reproduce. However some cells in culture have
undergone a mutation, or they have been manipulated in the laboratory,
so that they reproduce indefinitely.
Researchers can grow human pathogens like viruses in cell strains to
attenuate them – that is, to weaken them. One way viruses are adapted
for use in vaccines is to alter them so that they are no longer able to
grow well in the human body. This may be done by
repeatedly growing the virus in a human cell strain kept at a lower
temperature than normal body temperature. In order to keep replicating,
the virus adapts to become better at growing at the lower temperature,
thus losing its original ability to grow well and cause disease at
normal body temperatures. Later, when it’s used in a vaccine and
injected into a living human body at normal temperature, it still
provokes an immune response but can’t replicate enough to cause illness.
So, what is WI-38?
In 1941, Australian ophthalmologist Norman Gregg first realized that
congenital cataracts in babies were the result of their mothers being
infected with rubella during pregnancy. Along with cataracts, it was
eventually determined that congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) could also
cause deafness, heart disease, encephalitis, mental retardation, and
pneumonia, among many other conditions.
At the height of a rubella
epidemic, it was calculated that 1% of all births at Philadelphia
General Hospital were affected by congenital rubella syndrome. In some
cases, women who were infected with rubella while pregnant terminated
their pregnancies due to the serious risks from CRS.
Following one such abortion, the fetus was sent to Stanley Plotkin MD, at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. Testing the kidney of the
fetus, Plotkin found and isolated the rubella virus. Separately,
Leonard Hayflick (also working at the Wistar Institute at that time)
developed a cell strain called WI-38 using lung cells from an aborted
fetus. Hayflick found that many viruses, including rubella, grew well in
the WI-38, and he showed that it proved to be free of contaminants and
safe to use for human vaccines.
Plotkin grew the rubella virus he had isolated in WI-38 cells kept at 30°C, so that it eventually grew very poorly at normal body
temperature. After the virus had been grown
through the cells 25 times at the lower temperature, it was no longer
able to replicate enough to cause illness in a living person, but was still
able to provoke a protective immune response. The rubella vaccine
developed with WI-38 is still used throughout much of the world today as
part of the combined MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine.
How safe and effective is the Rubella vaccine
Plotkin’s vaccine was extensivelt tested over a ten year period before being first licensed in Europe in 1970 and Australia in 1971 and was widely
used with a strong safety profile and high efficacy. In light of
that data, and of larger side effect profiles with the two existing animal-culture rubella
vaccines, it was licensed in the United States in 1979 and replaced
the rubella vaccine component that had been previously been used for MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) combination vaccine. In 2005 the
CDC declared rubella eliminated from the United States, though the
threat from imported cases remains. The World Health Organization
declared the Americas free from rubella in 2015. In Australia, in 2017 there were ten reported cases of rubella. In 2018, Australia was declared free from rubella. source
The efficacy of the vaccine rose due to the administration of the second booster. The first dose of the MMR vaccine is likely to give about 96 percent of
those receiving it immunity against measles, mumps and rubella. After
the second dose, 99 percent of recipients are likely to be protected
against all three illnesses. The third does not only increases this effectiveness, but maintains close to 90% effectiveness in middle and old age.
But what about the ethical issues?
Groups that object to abortion have raised ethical questions about
Plotkin’s rubella vaccine (and other vaccines developed with similar
human cell strains) over the years.
Because of its position on abortion, some members of the Catholic
Church asked for its moral guidance on the use of vaccines developed
using cell strains started with human fetal cells. This includes the
vaccine against rubella as well as those against chickenpox and
hepatitis A, and some other vaccines. The official position according to
the National Catholic Bioethics Center is that individuals should, when
possible, use vaccines not developed with the use of these human cell
strains. However, in the case where the only vaccine available against a
particular disease was developed using this approach, the NCBC notes:
One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its
historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to
public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate
concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important
for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health
of their children and those around them.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not specifically addressed the issue of using embryonic cell lines, however the Church has made several statements in support of the entire range of childhood vaccines include an ex cathedra statement from the First Presidency in 1978. The statement
read in part:
“Immunization is such a simple, yet vital, matter and such
a small price to pay for protection against … destroying diseases.
“Failure
to act could subject untold thousands to preventable lifelong physical
or mental impairment, including paralysis, blindness, deafness, heart
damage, and mental retardation.
“We
urge members of the Church … to protect their own children through
immunization. Then they may wish to join other public-spirited citizens
in efforts to eradicate ignorance and apathy that have caused the
disturbingly low levels of childhood immunization.” (Reported in Ensign, July 1978, p. 79.) source
Thus, for a Latter-day Saint, not only is there no moral excuse for refusing vaccinations, there is a strong moral requirement for parents to fully vaccinate their children given in language that is about as strong as you are ever likely to get from the First Presidency on any issue.
