Smallpox Party

I really like telling people about unexpected things. When talking to normal people, stories about biological discoveries, such as monogamous and polygamous voles or the influence of MHC genes on sexual attractiveness, are always popular. It is much more difficult to surprise a biologist, but not so long ago I found a universal way: you can tell him about the existence of the anti-vaccination movement.

Usually no one believes. Vaccinations are such a textbook example of the victory of reason over death that it is almost impossible to imagine their opponent. It’s like fighting antibiotics (by the way, it happens) or denying the existence of HIV (it also happens, yeah). On reflection, my interlocutor remembers that one of his children’s friends had a fever after vaccination during the production of antibodies, and says: “Yeah, so these people are counting on herd immunity?” And then I finish him off - I give him a link to the anti-vaccine community, which has the tag “smallpox parties.” Mothers write in all seriousness: “My child is sick with rubella, bring your children to visit so they can get sick too” - and receive a dozen comments: “Thank you, we’ll come!”

After this, the shocked biologist writes some fiery text in the spirit of “People, come to your senses.” This text is not allowed into the anti-vaccination community because it contradicts their main Book, and on their own blog the biologist is answered: “Well, yes, we know that two and two are four, thank you.” This is where the popularization impulse ends, and everyone remains to their own. The topic of vaccinations is somehow not covered by popularization, because there are few real violent ones - much less than fighters against GMOs or lovers of homeopathy - and therefore journalists are not interested in writing about these freaks, and biologists and doctors living in their ivory tower about the existence anti-vaxxers are simply not known.

Meanwhile, the lack of normal popularization leads not only to a lack of immunity to measles, but also to a lack of immunity to noodles on the ears (and another question is which of these problems is more life-threatening). A single report of 12 children whose autism was thought to be linked to the measles, rubella and mumps vaccine led to an almost 25-fold increase in the incidence of measles in the UK in 10 years. This happened because people, absorbed in an idea, begin to be very selective in their approach to information: an article that agrees with the chosen myth is circulated as much as possible, and dozens of articles that contradict the myth are rejected without being read.

The fate of this publication (Wakefield et al, 1998) is shocking. It would have remained the banner of anti-vaxxers (who are not interested in the lack of further confirmation) if not for the work of journalist Brian Deer. He managed to find out that the author of the article received money from a law firm that was going to sue the vaccine manufacturer; that he himself patented an alternative measles vaccine in 1997; that he did not comply with ethical standards in his research; but most importantly, Dier was able to meet with the parents of the children described in the article and find out that the facts were manipulated. Autism symptoms appeared in fewer children than reported, and often appeared before vaccination - or after it, but six months later, rather than in the next two weeks. It was thanks to Dier's work that the Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper and the UK's General Medical Council revoked his right to practice medicine. Recently, an article by Brian Dier was published in the British Medical Journal, in which he describes in detail the investigation.

Three things concern me here. First of all, of course, I admire Western journalism. Secondly, it amuses me that any freaks, be they anti-GMO fighters or anti-vaccine fighters, always have several favorite scientific articles (“look, the scientist is also with us!”), and no matter what, some one is sure to open crap. And thirdly, I am very touched by the reaction of the anti-vaccine community. It refers to an interview with the author of the article, who, of course, says that his research is true and that evil people have slandered him. This link completely calms them down. If we are talking about a 1998 article, then the Lancet is a serious and respected peer-reviewed journal; if it’s about a refutation, then it immediately turns into a publication with corrupt editors bought by vaccine manufacturers.

This would all be fun, but I wouldn't want to live at a smallpox party. One can argue whether a person can do whatever he wants with his own child, but willy-nilly, all the neighbors are invited to such a party. There are women who, for some reason, were not revaccinated against rubella before pregnancy (and this virus affects the fetus). There are children who cannot be vaccinated due to objective health problems (and getting sick is even more dangerous). Finally, there are slobs who have not been interested in their vaccinations since leaving school. Normally, collective immunity protects them all from encountering viruses. If Wakefield and his followers manage to achieve the disappearance of herd immunity in the population, we will have a very fun life. It's a total party.