4 Ways Vaccine Skeptics Mislead You on Measles and More

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Measles is on the rise in the United States. In the first quarter of this year, the number of cases was about 17 times what it was, on average, during the same period in each of the four years before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Half of the people infected — mainly children — have been hospitalized.

It’s going to get worse, largely because a growing number of parents are deciding not to get their children vaccinated against measles as well as diseases like polio and pertussis. Unvaccinated people, or those whose immunization status is unknown, account for 80% of the measles cases this year. Many parents have been influenced by a flood of misinformation spouted by politicians, podcast hosts, and influential figures on television and social media. These personalities repeat decades-old notions that erode confidence in the established science backing routine childhood vaccines. KFF Health News examined the rhetoric and explains why it’s misguided:

The No-Big-Deal Trope

A common distortion is that vaccines aren’t necessary because the diseases they prevent are not very dangerous, or too rare to be of concern. Cynics accuse public health officials and the media of fear-mongering about measles even as 19 states report cases.

For example, an article posted on the website of the National Vaccine Information Center — a regular source of vaccine misinformation — argued that a resurgence in concern about the disease “is ‘sky is falling’ hype.” It went on to call measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenza “politically incorrect to get.”

Measles kills roughly 2 of every 1,000 children infected, according to the CDC. If that seems like a bearable risk, it’s worth pointing out that a far larger portion of children with measles will require hospitalization for pneumonia and other serious complications. For every 10 measles cases, one child with the disease develops an ear infection that can lead to permanent hearing loss. Another strange effect is that the measles virus can destroy a person’s existing immunity, meaning they’ll have a harder time recovering from influenza and other common ailments.

Measles vaccines have averted the deaths of about 94 million people, mainly children, over the past 50 years, according to an April analysis led by the World Health Organization. Together with immunizations against polio and other diseases, vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally.

Some skeptics argue that vaccine-preventable diseases are no longer a threat because they’ve become relatively rare in the U.S. (True — due to vaccination.) This reasoning led Florida’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, to tell parents that they could send their unvaccinated children to school amid a measles outbreak in February. “You look at the headlines and you’d think the sky was falling,” Ladapo said on a News Nation newscast. “There’s a lot of immunity.”

As this lax attitude persuades parents to decline vaccination, the protective group immunity will drop, and outbreaks will grow larger and faster. A rapid measles outbreak hit an undervaccinated population in Samoa in 2019, killing 83 people within four months. A chronic lack of measles vaccination in the Democratic Republic of the Congo led to more than 5,600 people dying from the disease in massive outbreaks last year.

The ‘You Never Know’ Trope

Since the earliest days of vaccines, a contingent of the public has considered them bad because they’re unnatural, as compared with nature’s bounty of infections and plagues. “Bad” has been redefined over the decades. In the 1800s, vaccine skeptics claimed that smallpox vaccines caused people to sprout horns and behave like beasts. More recently, they blame vaccines for ailments ranging from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder to autism to immune system disruption. Studies don’t back the assertions. However, skeptics argue that their claims remain valid because vaccines haven’t been adequately tested.

In fact, vaccines are among the most studied medical interventions. Over the past century, massive studies and clinical trials have tested vaccines during their development and after their widespread use. More than 12,000 people took part in clinical trials of the most recent vaccine approved to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella. Such large numbers allow researchers to detect rare risks, which are a major concern because vaccines are given to millions of healthy people.

To assess long-term risks, researchers sift through reams of data for signals of harm. For example, a Danish group analyzed a database of more than 657,000 children and found that those who had been vaccinated against measles as babies were no more likely to later be diagnosed with autism than those who were not vaccinated. In another study, researchers analyzed records from 805,000 children born from 1990 through 2001 and found no evidence to back a concern that multiple vaccinations might impair children’s immune systems.

Nonetheless, people who push vaccine misinformation, like candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dismiss massive, scientifically vetted studies. For example, Kennedy argues that clinical trials of new vaccines are unreliable because vaccinated kids aren’t compared with a placebo group that gets saline solution or another substance with no effect. Instead, many modern trials compare updated vaccines with older ones. That’s because it’s unethical to endanger children by giving them a sham vaccine when the protective effect of immunization is known. In a 1950s clinical trial of polio vaccines, 16 children in the placebo group died of polio and 34 were paralyzed, said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of a book on the first polio vaccine.

The Too-Much-Too-Soon Trope

Several bestselling vaccine books on Amazon promote the risky idea that parents should skip or delay their children’s vaccines. “All vaccines on the CDC’s schedule may not be right for all children at all times,” writes Paul Thomas in his bestselling book “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.” He backs up this conviction by saying that children who have followed “my protocol are among the healthiest in the world.”

Since the book was published, Thomas’ medical license was temporarily suspended in Oregon and Washington. The Oregon Medical Board documented how Thomas persuaded parents to skip vaccines recommended by the CDC, and reported that he “reduced to tears” a mother who disagreed.  Several children in his care came down with pertussis and rotavirus, diseases easily prevented by vaccines, wrote the board. Thomas recommended fish oil supplements and homeopathy to an unvaccinated child with a deep scalp laceration, rather than an emergency tetanus vaccine. The boy developed severe tetanus, landing in the hospital for nearly two months, where he required intubation, a tracheotomy, and a feeding tube to survive.

The vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC has been tailored to protect children at their most vulnerable points in life and minimize side effects. The combination measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine isn’t given for the first year of a baby’s life because antibodies temporarily passed on from their mother can interfere with the immune response. And because some babies don’t generate a strong response to that first dose, the CDC recommends a second one around the time a child enters kindergarten because measles and other viruses spread rapidly in group settings.

Delaying MMR doses much longer may be unwise because data suggests that children vaccinated at 10 or older have a higher chance of adverse reactions, such as a seizure or fatigue.

Around a dozen other vaccines have discrete timelines, with overlapping windows for the best response. Studies have shown that MMR vaccines may be given safely and effectively in combination with other vaccines.

’They Don’t Want You to Know’ Trope

Kennedy compares the Florida surgeon general to Galileo in the introduction to Ladapo’s new book on transcending fear in public health. Just as the Roman Catholic inquisition punished the renowned astronomer for promoting theories about the universe, Kennedy suggests that scientific institutions oppress dissenting voices on vaccines for nefarious reasons.

“The persecution of scientists and doctors who dare to challenge contemporary orthodoxies is not a new phenomenon,” Kennedy writes. His running mate, lawyer Nicole Shanahan, has campaigned on the idea that conversations about vaccine harms are censored and the CDC and other federal agencies hide data due to corporate influence.

Claims like “they don’t want you to know” aren’t new among the anti-vaccine set, even though the movement has long had an outsize voice. The most listened-to podcast in the U.S., “The Joe Rogan Experience,” regularly features guests who cast doubt on scientific consensus. Last year on the show, Kennedy repeated the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism.

Far from ignoring that concern, epidemiologists have taken it seriously. They have conducted more than a dozen studies searching for a link between vaccines and autism, and repeatedly found none. “We have conclusively disproven the theory that vaccines are connected to autism,” said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia. “So, the public health establishment tends to shut those conversations down quickly.”

Federal agencies are transparent about seizures, arm pain, and other reactions that vaccines can cause. And the government has a program to compensate individuals whose injuries are scientifically determined to result from them. Around 1 to 3.5 out of every million doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction; a person’s lifetime risk of death by lightning is estimated to be as much as four times as high.

“The most convincing thing I can say is that my daughter has all her vaccines and that every pediatrician and public health person I know has vaccinated their kids,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “No one would do that if they thought there were serious risks.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • How To Triple Your Breast Cancer Survival Chances
  • Fatigue? Unexplained weight gain and dry skin? Could it be Hashimoto’s disease?
    Feeling worn out? Trouble losing weight? It could be Hashimoto’s disease. This autoimmune thyroid disorder can cause long-term problems with your heart, memory, and fertility. Learn more here.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Your Brain Is Always Listening – by Dr. Daniel Amen

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    There are a lot of books on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), so what makes this one different?

    While many CBT books have a focus (as this one also does) on controlling Automatic Negative Thoughts (ANTs), this one stands out in two ways:

    Firstly: Dr. Amen, a medical doctor and psychiatrist, looks not just as the thoughts and feelings side of things… but also the neurological underpinnings. This makes a difference because it gives a much more tangible handle on some of the problems that we might face.

    We wouldn’t tell someone with Type 1 Diabetes that they are “just blaming their pancreas” for blood sugar woes. So what’s with the notion of “this person is just blaming their brain”? Why would be harder on ourselves (or others) for having amygdalae that are a little out of whack, or a sluggish prefrontal cortex, or an overactive anterior cingulate gyrus?

    So, Dr. Amen’s understanding and insights help us look at how we can give those bits of brain what they need to perk them up or calm them down.

    Secondly, rather than picture-perfect easily-solved neat-and-tidy made-up scenarios as illustrations, he uses real (messy, human) case studies.

    This means that we get to see how the methods advised work in the case of, for example, a business executive who has a trauma response to public speaking, because at the age of 12 he had to stand in court and argue for why his father should not receive the death penalty.

    Bottom line: if these methods can ease situations like that, maybe we can apply them usefully in our own lives, too.

    Click here to check out Your Brain Is Always Listening, and take control of yours!

    Share This Post

  • Stop Cancer 20 Years Ago

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Get Abreast And Keep Abreast

    This is Dr. Jenn Simmons. Her specialization is integrative oncology, as she—then a breast cancer surgeon—got breast cancer, decided the system wasn’t nearly as good from the patients’ side of things as from the doctors’ side, and took to educate herself, and now others, on how things can be better.

    What does she want us to know?

    Start now

    If you have breast cancer, the best time to start adjusting your lifestyle might be 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now. We realize our readers with breast cancer (or a history thereof) probably have indeed started already—all strength to you.

    What this means for those of us without breast cancer (or a history therof) is: start now

    Even if you don’t have a genetic risk factor, even if there’s no history of it in your family, there’s just no reason not to start now.

    Start what, you ask? Taking away its roots. And how?

    Inflammation as the root of cancer

    To oversimplify: cancer occurs because an accidentally immortal cell replicates and replicates and replicates and takes any nearby resources to keep on going. While science doesn’t know all the details of how this happens, it is a factor of genetic mutation (itself a normal process, without which evolution would be impossible), something which in turn is accelerated by damage to the DNA. The damage to the DNA? That occurs (often as not) as a result of cellular oxidation. Cellular oxidation is far from the only genotoxic thing out there, and a lot of non-food “this thing causes cancer” warnings are usually about other kinds of genotoxicity. But cellular oxidation is a big one, and it’s one that we can fight vigorously with our lifestyle.

    Because cellular oxidation and inflammation go hand-in-hand, reducing one tends to reduce the other. That’s why so often you’ll see in our Research Review Monday features, a line that goes something like:

    “and now for those things that usually come together: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and anti-aging”

    So, fight inflammation now, and have a reduced risk of a lot of other woes later.

    See: How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation

    Don’t settle for “normal”

    People are told, correctly but not always helpfully, such things as:

    • It’s normal to have less energy at your age
    • It’s normal to have a weaker immune system at your age
    • It’s normal to be at a higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc

    …and many more. And these things are true! But that doesn’t mean we have to settle for them.

    We can be all the way over on the healthy end of the distribution curve. We can do that!

    (so can everyone else, given sufficient opportunity and resources, because health is not a zero-sum game)

    If we’re going to get a cancer diagnosis, then our 60s are the decade where we’re most likely to get it. Earlier than that and the risk is extant but lower; later than that and technically the risk increases, but we probably got it already in our 60s.

    So, if we be younger than 60, then now’s a good time to prepare to hit the ground running when we get there. And if we missed that chance, then again, the second-best time is now:

    See: Focusing On Health In Our Sixties

    Fast to live

    Of course, anything can happen to anyone at any age (alas), but this is about the benefits of living a fasting lifestyle—that is to say, not just fasting for a 4-week health kick or something, but making it one’s “new normal” and just continuing it for life.

    This doesn’t mean “never eat”, of course, but it does mean “practice intermittent fasting, if you can”—something that Dr. Simmons strongly advocates.

    See: Intermittent Fasting: We Sort The Science From The Hype

    While this calls back to the previous “fight inflammation”, it deserves its own mention here as a very specific way of fighting it.

    It’s never too late

    All of the advices that go before a cancer diagnosis, continue to stand afterwards too. There is no point of “well, I already have cancer, so what’s the harm in…?”

    The harm in it after a diagnosis will be the same as the harm before. When it comes to lifestyle, preventing a cancer and preventing it from spreading are very much the same thing, which is also the same as shrinking it. Basically, if it’s anticancer, it’s anticancer, no matter whether it’s before, during, or after.

    Dr. Simmons has seen too many patients get a diagnosis, and place their lives squarely in the hands of doctors, when doctors can only do so much.

    Instead, Dr. Simmons recommends taking charge of your health as best you are able, today and onwards, no matter what. And that means two things:

    1. Knowing stuff
    2. Doing stuff

    So it becomes our responsibility (and our lifeline) to educate ourselves, and take action accordingly.

    Want to know more?

    We recently reviewed her book, and heartily recommend it:

    The Smart Woman’s Guide to Breast Cancer – by Dr. Jenn Simmons

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Chair Stretch Workout Guide

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝The 3 most important exercises don’t work if you can’t get on the floor. I’m 78, and have knee replacements. What about 3 best chair yoga stretches? Love your articles!❞

    Here are six!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • How To Triple Your Breast Cancer Survival Chances
  • 5 Things You Can Change About Your Personality (But: Should You?)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    There are many personality-typing systems that, with varying degrees of validity*, aim to describe a person’s personality.

    *and often pseudoscience:

    • sometimes obviously so like astrology
    • sometimes dressed up in clinical words like the Meyers-Briggs
    • sometimes openly, per “this is not science but you may find it useful to frame things this way”, like the Enneagram

    There is currently one kind of personality-typing system (with some minor variations) that is used in the actual field of clinical psychology, specifically under the umbrella of “trait theory”, and that is…

    The “Big Five” personality traits

    Also called the OCEAN or CANOE model, based on its 5 components:

    • openness to experience: inventive/curious rather than consistent/cautious
    • conscientiousness: efficient/organized rather than extravagant/careless
    • extroversion: outgoing/energetic rather than solitary/reserved
    • agreeableness: friendly/compassionate rather than critical/judgmental
    • neuroticism: sensitive/nervous rather than resilient/confident

    The latter (neuroticism) is not to be confused with neurosis, which is very different and beyond the scope of today’s article.

    Note that some of these seem more positive/negative than others at a glance, but really, any of these could be a virtue or a vice depending on specifics or extremity.

    For scientific reference, here’s an example paper:

    The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values

    Quick self-assessment

    There are of course many lengthy questionnaires for this, but in the interests of expediency:

    Take a moment to rate yourself as honestly as you can, on a scale of 1–10, for each of those components, with 10 being highest for the named trait.

    For example, this writer gives herself: O7, C6, E3, A8, N2 (in other words I’d say I’m fairly open, moderately conscientious, on the reserved side, quite agreeable, and quite resilient)

    Now, put your rating aside (in your phone’s notes app is fine, if you hadn’t written it down already) and forget about it for the moment, because we want you to do the next exercise from scratch.

    Who would you be, at your best?

    Now imagine your perfect idealized self, the best you could ever be, with no constraints.

    Take a moment to rate your idealized self’s personality, on a scale of 1–10, for each of those components, with 10 being highest for the named trait.

    For example, this writer picks: O9, C10, E5, A8, N1.

    Maybe this, or maybe your own idealized self’s personality, will surprise you. That some traits might already be perfect for you already; others might just be nudged a little here or there; maybe there’s some big change you’d like. Chances are you didn’t go for a string of 10s or 1s (though if you did, you do you; there are no wrong answers here as this one is about your preferences).

    We become who we practice being

    There are some aspects of personality that can naturally change with age. For example:

    • confidence/resilience will usually gradually increase with age due to life experience (politely overlook teenagers’ bravado; they are usually a bundle of nerves inside, resulting in the overcompensatory displays of confidence)
    • openness to experience may decrease with age, as we can get into a rut of thinking/acting a certain way, and/or simply consciously decide that our position on something is already complete and does not need revision.

    But, we can decide for ourselves how to nudge our “Big Five” traits, for example:

    1. We can make a point of seeking out new experiences, and considering new ideas, or develop strategies for reining ourselves in
    2. We can use systems to improve our organization, or go out of our way to introduce a little well-placed chaos
    3. We can “put ourselves out there” socially, or make the decision to decline more social invitations because we simply don’t want to
    4. We can make a habit of thinking kindly of others and ourselves, or we can consciously detach ourselves and look on the cynical side more
    5. We can build on our strengths and eliminate our weaknesses, or lean into uncomfortable emotions

    Some of those may provoke a “why would anyone want to…?” response, but the truth is we are all different. An artist and a police officer may have very different goals for who they want to be as a person, for example.

    Interventions to change personality can and do work:

    A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention

    There are many ways to go about “being the change we want to see” in ourselves, and yes there can be a degree of “fake it until you make it” if that works for you, but it doesn’t have to be so. It can also simply be a matter of setting yourself reminders about the things that are most important to you.

    Writer’s example: pinned above my digital workspace I have a note from my late beloved, written just under a week before death. The final line reads, “keep being the good person that you are” (on a human level, the whole note is uplifting and soothing to me and makes me smile and remember the love we shared; or to put it in clinical terms, it promotes high agreeableness, low neuroticism).

    Other examples could be a daily practice of gratitude (promotes lower neuroticism), or going out of your way to speak to your neighbors (promotes higher extraversion), signing up for a new educational course (promotes higher openness) or downloading a budgeting app (promotes higher conscientiousness).

    In short: be the person you want to be, and be that person deliberately, because you can.

    Some resources that may help for each of the 5 traits:

    1. Curiosity Kills The Neurodegeneration
    2. How (And Why) To Train Your Pre-Frontal Cortex
    3. How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation
    4. Optimism Seriously Increases Longevity!
    5. Building Psychological Resilience (Without Undue Hardship)

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Sunflower Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing sunflower seeds to pumpkin seeds, we picked the pumpkin seeds.

    Why?

    Both seeds have a good spread of vitamins and minerals, but pumpkin seeds have more. Sunflower seeds come out on top for copper and manganese, but everything else that’s present in either of them (in the category of vitamins and minerals, anyway), pumpkin seeds have more.

    There is one other thing that sunflower seeds have more of than pumpkin seeds, and that’s fat. The fat is mostly of healthy varieties, so it’s not a negative factor, but it does mean that if you’re eating a calorie-controlled diet, you’ll get more bang for your buck (i.e. better micronutrient-to-calorie ratio) if you pick pumpkin seeds.

    If you’re not concerned about fat/calories, and/or you actively want to consume more of those, then sunflower seeds are still a fine choice.

    When it comes down to it, a diverse diet is best, so enjoying both might be the best option of all.

    Want to get some?

    We don’t sell them, but here for your convenience are example products on Amazon:

    Sunflower Seeds | Pumpkin Seeds

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Beetroot vs Carrot – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing beetroot to carrot, we picked the carrot.

    Why?

    It was close! And beetroot does have its advantages, but we say carrot wins on balance.

    In terms of macros, these two root vegetables are close to identical, down to both having 9.57g carbs per 100g, and 2.8g fiber per 100g. Technically, beetroot has a smidgen more protein, but nobody’s eating these for their tiny protein content.

    When it comes to vitamins, it’s not close and the margins are mostly huge: carrots have a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, C, E, K, and choline, while beetroot has more vitamin B9.

    In the category of minerals, superficially it swings the other way, but the margins this time are small. Nevertheless, beetroot has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while carrots have more calcium.

    This would make things, on balance, a tie: equal on macros, carrots win on vitamins, beetroot wins on minerals.

    But because of the relative margins of difference, carrots win the day, because they’re almost as good as beetroot on those minerals, whereas beetroot doesn’t come close to carrot on the vitamins.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    From Apples to Bees, and high-fructose C’s: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: