How to debunk anti-vaccine sources?

June 7, 2019 8:46 AM

Typically, the sources cited by anti-vaxxers to provide evidence that vaccines cause autism or are otherwise dangerous are not credible and thus easily dismissible. This Gish gallop of a Reddit post is something else, though—50 different links, many of them to NCBI or other academic journals.

I’m aware of the scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe, that there is no convincing evidence that thiomersal excipient contributes to autism, and that autism diagnoses have been rising in general. Skimming some of these links also reveals that many of them only show associations or are tangentially related at best. Nevertheless, I’d like to know if any of these are worth taking seriously.

posted by Bodechack to Science & Nature (11 answers total)

No, they're not worth taking seriously.

I clicked on one at random.
It said it was funded by an organization that at quick googling is a prominent anti-vax funder.
I clicked on its authors and they just do a lot of drum-beating around thimerisol - Which isn't in many vaccines anymore.
And the journal it was published in appears to be something of a fly-by-night that's been around for only a few years.

So do you trust its conclusions?

Vaccines aren't "generally" safe. They are extremely safe, except in rare conditions, and provide benefits that staggeringly outweigh the minuscule costs.

Something about science is that you can do a little bit of "science" and get some results, and get them published, and that doesn't make them good science or true results.
posted by entropone at 9:30 AM on June 7, 2019 [4 favorites]

Or rather. They're worth taking seriously inasmuch as it shows how disinformation can spread and assume a veil of legitimacy.

And they're worth taking seriously because people have real concerns for their children's well-being, and can be swayed by stuff like this - especially when 'the other side' doesn't always do a great job of listening or communicating.

And they're worth being taken seriously because there's a well-funded movement to make more of it.

But they're not worth being taken seriously as science.
posted by entropone at 9:34 AM on June 7, 2019 [2 favorites]

The Danes did a huuge study to determine if theres any link w/the MMR vaccine and autism.
posted by speakeasy at 9:44 AM on June 7, 2019

The debunking starts and ends with the fact that the "study" that put the alleged vaccine-autism link out there in the public consciousness was an absolute and complete fabrication, and Andrew Wakefield himself is a fraud artist and a grifter, and is no longer a medical doctor for that reason.

The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud:

The final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield et al. were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts). The British Medical Journal has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain. It is a matter of concern that the exposé was a result of journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance followed by the institution of corrective measures. Readers may be interested to learn that the journalist on the Wakefield case, Brian Deer, had earlier reported on the false implication of thiomersal (in vaccines) in the etiology of autism. However, Deer had not played an investigative role in that report.

The systematic failures which permitted the Wakefield fraud were discussed by Opel et al.

If you're a podcast person, you might want to check out the Behind the Bastards episodes on Wakefield.

Part One: The Birth of the Anti-Vaccine Movement

Part Two: Andrew Wakefield: The Worst Doctor Alive
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:06 AM on June 7, 2019 [9 favorites]

Just picking one at random: positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake. Correlation is not causation. If it were, importing Mexican lemons would prevent highway deaths.

This stuff is a prime example of Brandolini's Law: "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
posted by exogenous at 10:57 AM on June 7, 2019 [6 favorites]

Multiple papers in that link were authored by VK Singh. You can read more about his research and the criticism of it on his Wikipedia page.

Also the links about "vaccine failure" are because vaccine protocols were written in a time when it was assumed everyone would be vaccinated, so you would only need to get the vaccine once, and later in life, you would be protected by herd immunity as the disease would eventually be eradicated. Since we now know we can't rely on everyone getting vaccinated, there are considerations for vaccinating people multiple times in their lifetime instead. This isn't an argument against vaccines - in that the vaccines themselves are harmful, it's one against the current protocols which need to be re-assessed in the context of a world which anti-vaxxers are ruining.
posted by bluefly at 11:22 AM on June 7, 2019 [8 favorites]

However, in regards to the vaccine failure, some vaccines may not be as efficacious as they previously were. (I didn't notice any of the links talking about this, though). Microbes evolve and science must keep up through research. This is still not an argument against vaccines as a concept, as they are still not harmful. The first clinical trial for a universal flu vaccine began a couple months ago, as an example.
posted by bluefly at 11:40 AM on June 7, 2019

Not specifically debunking, but there's this Economist article which discusses evidence that something other than vaccines can cause autism.
posted by duoshao at 2:11 PM on June 7, 2019

In comic form: Vaccines Work. Here Are the Facts.
posted by farlukar at 3:49 PM on June 7, 2019 [2 favorites]

You might start by introducing your credulous targets to the evidence that the whole controversy is being manipulated.

Both sides are emotionally charged to the point where they don't listen to each other respectfully. It now seems that the doctors trying to get people to vaccinate have figured out that they really need to get pro-vaccine people to shut up, as the vaccine hesitant are being forced into a siege mentality where they know their concerns about putting poison into their bodies as being treated as if it was absurd by people who share that concern deeply and won't eat processed food or otherwise try to make healthy choices.
posted by Jane the Brown at 5:37 AM on June 8, 2019

There is a tiny risk. A very small number of people, obviously usually small children, have an adverse reaction of some kind. There is a fund set up to compensate families if they have a non-trivial adverse reaction. As parents, we all take that tiny risk so that every child can be protected. Some children have life-threatening allergies, some children are being treated for cancer, have transplants, and their immune systems will not tolerate vaccines. They must rely on herd immunity. While you take that tiny risk for your child, most everybody else took that risk before you, protecting your baby until it's old enough to be vaccinated. It's civic responsibility in action.

I don't just accept that vaccines are very safe and generally effective; I am grateful. I'm old enough to have known a number of people who had polio, the neighbor who was blind because her Mom had rubella while pregnant, the older siblings who had diphtheria and whooping cough. I'm envious of y'all who got vaccinated for chicken pox; I have to get the shingles vax, I know countless people who have suffered through shingles. Vaccines are fantastic, life-saving, one of the best gifts you can give or get.
posted by theora55 at 4:23 PM on June 8, 2019 [1 favorite]