What exactly IS an "Anti Vaxxer"?

emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B · Sep 17, 2021

What indeed? Are they the righteous or the selfish & evil? Will they have “…what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity.”.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.”

allnurses Guide · Sep 17, 2021

Posted in a different thread but will leave my two cents here too.

I consider "antivax" as individuals that have emotionally decided against a vaccine and than have "researched" reasons to support that decision. The typical pattern presents with a slew of different reasons that have been picked up from other like minded people via selection bias but are completely superficial, rely on logical fallacies and conspiracy theory, and are easily abandoned in place of a new reason if challenged.

The rise of the anti-vaccination movement has been fueled by the age pseudoscience, the internet, and the relative death of expertise (a great book if you’ve never read it). People think that minutes on Google trumps (pardon the pun) decades of education and experience. People have become their own best expert on everything. I also think there is bleed over from the “participation trophy movement” on the left in that people honestly feel that they deserve equal time of scientific expert opinion and crack pot conspiracy opinion.

A new word has been making its way around the internet and I think I applies perfectly: agnorant.

Hoosier_RN, MSN · Sep 17, 2021

1 hour ago, BostonFNP said:

Posted in a different thread but will leave my two cents here too.

I consider "antivax" as individuals that have emotionally decided against a vaccine and than have "researched" reasons to support that decision. The typical pattern presents with a slew of different reasons that have been picked up from other like minded people via selection bias but are completely superficial, rely on logical fallacies and conspiracy theory, and are easily abandoned in place of a new reason if challenged.

The rise of the anti-vaccination movement has been fueled by the age pseudoscience, the internet, and the relative death of expertise (a great book if you’ve never read it). People think that minutes on Google trumps (pardon the pun) decades of education and experience. People have become their own best expert on everything. I also think there is bleed over from the “participation trophy movement” on the left in that people honestly feel that they deserve equal time of scientific expert opinion and crack pot conspiracy opinion.

A new word has been making its way around the internet and I think I applies perfectly: agnorant.

100% agree with your definition. Want to add to it that these folks also try to impose their decision upon you and tell you that you are stupid for following your own investigation into the science

MarkMyWords · Sep 17, 2021

Totally agree...it is an old idea. I taught critical thinking, anti-pseudoscience in college. Students were not interested in debunking phony ideas or fallacies or scientific reasoning. Not exciting., Students, young and adults, are widely apathetic anyway, especially toward knowledge that seems impractical or intellectual. They view science as an alternative answer, not the best or final answer. Some can't understand the importance of reliable evidence or any evidence and don't care either. Or the false cause fallacy.

It is not taught in American high schools. Religion wants us to believe that faith is superior to science and religious folks disrespect aspects of science.

Phrenology (bumps on head) was considered true, even with educated citizens, in 19th century. So was blood-letting.

Hoosier_RN, MSN · Sep 17, 2021

3 hours ago, emtb2rn said:

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.”

My most favorite movie quote ever!

Sorry, now back on topic

jive turkey · Sep 17, 2021

5 hours ago, BostonFNP said:

Posted in a different thread but will leave my two cents here too.

I consider "antivax" as individuals that have emotionally decided against a vaccine and than have "researched" reasons to support that decision. The typical pattern presents with a slew of different reasons that have been picked up from other like minded people via selection bias but are completely superficial, rely on logical fallacies and conspiracy theory, and are easily abandoned in place of a new reason if challenged.

The rise of the anti-vaccination movement has been fueled by the age pseudoscience, the internet, and the relative death of expertise (a great book if you’ve never read it). People think that minutes on Google trumps (pardon the pun) decades of education and experience. People have become their own best expert on everything. I also think there is bleed over from the “participation trophy movement” on the left in that people honestly feel that they deserve equal time of scientific expert opinion and crack pot conspiracy opinion.

A new word has been making its way around the internet and I think I applies perfectly: agnorant.

Understood. What are some specific examples of arguments and perspectives that come from what you consider to be A.V.?

I consider an A.V to be anyone who identifies as such, and universally opposes vaccination for either themselves, their family, or anyone under any circumstance.

Example arguments of an A.V. (some not all)

-Wildly unproven beliefs presented as factual with no academic or other scientific studies to support the belief (I.e. microchips)

-Arguments insisting vaccines have, can, and will cause adverse effects without any evidence based on speculation or poorly sourced references

- Disputes against vaccination due to political affiliation alone

Arguments that I don't consider A.V. but are often labeled as such (some not all):

-Declining vaccination after infection

-Concerns with a specific vaccine due to recent release and the potential for undiscovered adverse effects/known adverse effects

-Arguments against blanket mandates while not universally opposing vaccines

allnurses Guide · Sep 17, 2021

22 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

What are some specific examples of arguments and perspectives that come from what you consider to be A.V.?

These are the same arguments we have seen since the dawn of the vaccine era and include:

vaccines are not 100% effective and thus are ineffective

vaccines are not responsible for eradication of illness something else is

vaccines are not 100% safe and thus dangerous

vaccines contains toxins or elements to change DNA

vaccines are part of a larger conspiracy

appeals to alternative authorities

immune system is strong on its own and weakened by vaccines

natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity because of risk of vaccine injury

vaccines aren't worth the risk

jive turkey · Sep 17, 2021

2 hours ago, BostonFNP said:

These are the same arguments we have seen since the dawn of the vaccine era and include:

vaccines are not 100% effective and thus are ineffective

vaccines are not responsible for eradication of illness something else is

vaccines are not 100% safe and thus dangerous

vaccines contains toxins or elements to change DNA

vaccines are part of a larger conspiracy

appeals to alternative authorities

immune system is strong on its own and weakened by vaccines

natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity because of risk of vaccine injury

vaccines aren't worth the risk

The last 2 are the only ones I could see having a debate over. The 3rd to last I'd be interested to learn what vaccine this argument was used against and what evidence there was to support that or if that was just a generalized argument.

allnurses Guide · Sep 18, 2021

3 hours ago, jive turkey said:

The last 2 are the only ones I could see having a debate over. The 3rd to last I'd be interested to learn what vaccine this argument was used against and what evidence there was to support that or if that was just a generalized argument.

The notion that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity due to the risk of vaccine injury is fatally flawed in that it ignores the risk of having the natural illness, both short term and long term.

Any vaccine that is approved by the FDA is required to demonstrate that it is safe and effective.

I hear "I have a strong immune system" or "I never get sick" as a very common reason to avoid a number of vaccines, probably the most common is influenza.

jive turkey · Sep 18, 2021

56 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

The notion that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity due to the risk of vaccine injury is fatally flawed in that it ignores the risk of having the natural illness, both short term and long term.

Any vaccine that is approved by the FDA is required to demonstrate that it is safe and effective.

I hear "I have a strong immune system" or "I never get sick" as a very common reason to avoid a number of vaccines, probably the most common is influenza.

Which is why I said debatable. In the example you gave, I didn't take it to imply someone take their chances with a deadly disease vs accept immunization.

Where I could see room to debate which type of immunity is "stronger" is after the fact, like people who had COVID before a vaccine was available vs vaccination of the naive.

As far as the injury part reducing effectiveness, that doesn't compute to me.

allnurses Guide · Sep 18, 2021

17 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Which is why I said debatable. In the example you gave, I didn't take it to imply someone take their chances with a deadly disease vs accept immunization.

Where I could see room to debate which type of immunity is "stronger" is after the fact, like people who had COVID before a vaccine was available vs vaccination of the naive.

As far as the injury part reducing effectiveness, that doesn't compute to me.

Antivaxxers, traditionally, have held to this notion that natural immunity is safe (think of parents having chicken pox parties) and vaccines are dangerous. I've never heard of covid parties but there is this undercurrent that the vaccine is more dangerous than the illness.

In most of our lifetimes we have not seen emergent vaccines for illness which many living had as children (varicella, HPV are probably the notable ones). It will take time to determine how lasting and protective immunity is, but the fact remains if you have no immunity, vaccines are vastly safer for acquiring immunity.

I'm not sure what is meant by "injury part reducing effectiveness".