Why are we so ignorant about biology that quacks gain popularity?

[Jacob(smooth)]

I was raised in a christian-science household.
One of the BS practices of that cult is to not
have children immunized. I have never received
any immunizations or vaccines of any kind. I am
now 46 years old and I have never had a major
illness. I never get colds or the flu - ever! I am
one of the healthiest people I have ever known.
I'm not saying that we don't need immunizations
as a race, but as individuals, some may not need
them at all.

People who don't subject themselves to the small risk of immunisation benefit from herd immunity. When they stop to coo at the baby in the supermarket they'll share their disease. There still could be a place for public stoning in modern society.

That's a little harsh, but only a little.

I recently had to treat a child with what we suspected to be polio. I say suspected because we're not very good at identifying polio in children any more. We've not had to do it for several decades because the disease was ALMOST iradicated.

The reason it's "almost" as opposed to completely is because of one ibrahim datti Ahmed. An Islamic fuckwit who declared that the polio vaccine was a Western conspiracy to make Muslims infertile (or some such bollocks). The idea spread and a few other countries didn't vaccinate. Just enough to keep the reservoir of infection going. And now voila we're seeing it again.

People come up with all sorts of reasons not to vaccinate. Mercury, autism, gubbermint conspiracy and the more honest "I don't like needles". Ultimately the reasons don't alter the outcome.

The idea that some individuals don't need immunisations has got to be one of the dumber reasons I've heard (sorry).

Firstly, it's retroactive. You would only know after you died of bear attack aged 80. Up til then all you can really say is you've not got a major disease YET.

Secondly, you're taking advantage of herd immunity. That's like saying "some people don't need to pay tax."
yeah, because everyone else does!

Thirdly, it's magical thinking of an almost theistic level. There is no mystery to why people get sick. If you are exposed to a disease you don't have immunity to, you get sick. Simple as that. A better immune system well respond more quickly and effectively but that's all. As someone else said, try smallpox.

Also, let's suspend disbelief and say you have a magic immune system which works different to anyone else's and stops you getting sick. Do you reckon you'll immune system will work as well when you are 70?

Finally, and this is my number one bugbear, you're drawing a conclusion (some people may not need vaccines) from a data point (I don't get sick). It's an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes NOT data. If I gave 180 people guns and got them to play Russian roulette with 5 bullets and one empty chamber, 36 (ish) would survive. They play again, 6 left. They play again, one survived. That person might conclude that SOME PEOPLE CAN PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE SAFELY. That person would be in error. It's the gunslinger fallacy, you're drawing a conclusion after the data is in rather than posing a hypothesis and testing it.

Sorry if I'm ranty, but I've had to watch people pick up the pieces after children have been left disabled from completely preventable diseases so I tend to feel a bit passionately about this. Talk to a parent who's kid is brain damage from measles after they decided it was best not to vaccinate. It somewhat changes your perspective.