Aaron Siri & Joe Rogan on The Religion of Vaccines

Very odd the number of people who seem to be anti-vax (not saying that's you btw) and the lengths they'll go to do discredit them. It's such a weird niche thing to be focused on and I find that part very interesting. People will be suspicious of vaccines but then put all sorts of things in their bodies that they never question. Or they'll cherry pick which medicine they believe in which I also find really interesting. Just the inconsistency in their reasoning specifically. But to address what you posted: Siri conflates mortality rates in the 50s with infection rates. Sure the mortality rate had declined a great deal but the infection rate was still at 95%. If people don't get the measles in the first place then the decline in mortality will be even higher which is pretty important for the families of the people who would have died. The autism thing is just bonkers. The Amish have autistic people just at a lower rate and even that is uncertain because they are less likely to be able to diagnose it. What's more Siri mentions how the CDC couldn't state that there was no evidence that vaccines don't cause autism but neglects the fact that there is no scientific evidence that they do (the study he cites has been heavily discredited and also not reproducible). There are a few other misleading things he says but what I'm genuinely curious about is how people who are curious about vaccines will never (to my knowledge) listen to someone who is a doctor or virologist explain their perspective. I think it's a very interesting human tendency that we have to ignore the majority of scientific evidence to focus on unscientific speculation. I wonder if it's part of our hard wiring to expect danger and to want to protect ourselves. I think that would be a very interesting topic of discussion because of the quirks in our thinking. We distrust the doctors who say vaccines are good, thinking them to be putting our lives at risk, while also going to them for other life saving or invasive treatments. Interesting.

Oh I just came up with a better way to illustrate what I find fascinating: if you were going to build a deck for your house, say, you wouldn't listen to a podcast by a lawyer who has been involved with lawsuits involving decks and deck construction and who has a book about how carpentry is dangerous, you'd probably talk to a carpenter.

Thanks Nile, I really appreciated the thought and effort you put into this.
I think you make a good point about the inconsistency in how people assess risk and expertise. Your carpenter analogy made me laugh because I actually thought it was a pretty strong way of framing it.
I also agree with your observation that vaccines can feel like a strangely niche thing to become intensely focused on… until people (myself included!) have children and suddenly realise they’re being asked to make decisions they don’t feel fully equipped to evaluate themselves. I suspect that’s where a lot of the anxiety and curiosity comes from.
One thing I’m still trying to work through is how ordinary people should navigate claims that have been “debunked” when there also seems to be distrust toward the institutions doing the debunking. That’s probably the part I find most difficult.
I also realised while listening that I struggled to find long-form, pro-vaccine conversations that directly addressed some of the specific claims being made, rather than dismissing them quickly or framing everything as simply “anti-science”. Maybe others here have recommendations? I’d genuinely be interested.
Either way, I appreciate the tone of your response. This is exactly the kind of conversation I hoped the post might generate.

yeah I think the big issue is that no one really consults virologists or other experts because even for someone like me who believes in the science, it's pretty boring. Lol. So if I have a podcast, it's a much better move to have someone who questions vaccines than it is to have someone explaining why they work. Case in point: we're talking about this episode, but we're not talking about any podcasts that feature experts explaining vaccines. :)

I shared Nile’s comments with the friend who originally sent me the podcast because I was curious to hear how Nile’s response landed with someone who has spent a lot more time looking into this topic than I have. With his permission, I’m reposting part of his response below because I thought it was an interesting continuation of the conversation, and a useful example of how differently people can interpret the same landscape of information, incentives, expertise, and trust.

“I understand why he thinks that because I used to think the same thing. Eye roll… but it’s true. Why vaccines? Why not other medications? Well, for me, it comes down to legal immunity and incentives.
A lot of medicines are studied for 6 or 7 years before and after licensure because pharma companies are financially exposed if harm emerges later. And even then, around 30% still get pulled post licensure, not because companies suddenly discover they may cause harm, but because the financial cost of lawsuits and payouts eventually outweighs the profits. Companies know some products will cause harm and still release them because they believe the commercial upside outweighs the legal risk.
Vaccines are different because manufacturers have broad legal immunity. So my question becomes: where is the financial incentive to run expensive, long term safety studies?
One example that really stuck with me was learning that Eliquis, one of Pfizer’s most profitable drugs, was studied for years, while the Hep B vaccine given to one week old babies was studied for neurological and immunological harm over a total of 5 days before licensure. When I read that, I genuinely couldn’t believe it. But it’s published.
So when people say “vaccines haven’t been shown to cause autism”, my question is always: who is studying that? The same institutions deeply tied to pharma and vaccine policy? Pharma companies themselves? Why would they fund a massive multi decade study that could potentially expose harm in one of their most protected products?
I think a lot of the distrust comes from perceived conflicts of interest. Regulators, manufacturers, public health bodies, legal protections… it all feels very intertwined to me.
Also, most people questioning vaccines aren’t saying vaccines don’t work. I know they work. The concern is whether they are as safe as we’re told, and whether the studies are rigorous enough.
And on the point about listening to experts, there are literally hours of Aaron Siri deposing Stanley Plotkin, one of the world’s leading vaccinologists. So it’s not that people on this side never engage with the pro vaccine perspective. A lot of us feel like we do listen, but that concerns are often dismissed immediately with labels like “anti vax” or “anti science” instead of being explored properly.
And honestly, I think it’s very hard for intelligent people to accept they may have been misled because it threatens their sense of competence. I include myself in that.
As for the carpenter analogy, I actually think it’s more like this:
Imagine there were only five carpenters on earth. Those five carpenters sat down with the regulatory bodies and came up with the rules around decks. Imagine the tests on the decks were very brief, if they happened at all, and the people testing them were paid by the carpenters themselves.
And imagine that if one of the decks collapsed and hurt someone, the carpenters could never be sued for it.
Now imagine a husband and wife disagreeing about whether to build a deck for their child. The husband thinks they’re perfectly safe because everyone says so. The wife isn’t convinced, so she hires a lawyer to investigate the safety standards and expose where corners may have been cut.
And the lawyer has to be incredibly careful and precise with every piece of information because if he can’t make the case convincingly enough, that deck is still getting built and her child is still expected to play on it.
Suddenly the lawyer questioning deck safety doesn’t seem so irrational.
That’s basically the lens through which I see this conversation.”

Thanks for adding Jeanne,without having listened to the conversation I'm aware of Aaron Siri and seen bits and pieces on him previously.
Firstly I'm just glad we're able to have this conversation,go back a few years ago this was a topic you couldn't touch.
And that's exactly what got me interested in this topic many years ago along with other such topics where terms like anti-vax/anti-science/antisemitic/anti-democractic (the list goes on) are used as labels to stop debate and make it seem like the person being labelled is unreasonable/kooky.
I always feel if a persons belief is so solid and concrete,discussion on the topic should be welcomed and it should be super easy to convince the person of your beliefs without having to bypass a reasonable debate.
That being said I think the comments above were awesome and the analogy's even better