[I posted this as a comment to another diary, but upon reflection, IMHO, it merits a thread of its own.]
When Texas State Rep., Bill Zedler, recently made fatuous comments to the effect that measles is not a worry in the US due to “antibiotics and stuff”, many Kossacks here were quick to excoriate him as an idiot, since -duh- measles is a virus and doesn’t respond to antibiotics. As a virologist and infectious diseases doctor, these comments made me wince. I do think Zedler is a dim bulb and that anti-vaccine zealots are a public health menace. I also believe that scorn and ridicule are important arrows in the quiver of political debate. However, if you are going to attack an ideological position in this way, it is important, IMO, to put a little effort into getting facts straight first. Otherwise, our arguments are easily undermined, and can end up making us, rather than them, look bad.
As it happens, one of the hallmarks of measles infection is acute immune suppression, through interesting and multifactorial mechanisms, and the resulting secondary viral and bacterial infections, particularly pneumonia, are a major cause of measles fatalities. In addition, the largest risk factor for measles death worldwide is malnutrition (particularly Vitamin A), again through interesting and multifactorial mechanisms, so it is true that measles deaths are much larger problem in the developing world. Of note, this is also true of influenza, a viral infection, where a substantial fraction of the mortality is due to secondary bacterial pneumonia. Antibiotics have made a significant difference in reducing death rates from both measles and influenza, even though they are viral infections.
Obviously, we can’t all be experts on everything, but this fact, that one of the biggest problems with measles infection is the immune suppression and secondary bacterial pneumonia, could easily have been found out from a couple minutes perusal of the wikipedia page on measles, or better yet the CDC patient information pages. I don’t think it should be asking too much to ask people to do a few minutes of fact checking before posting. I do this even in areas where I am an actual expert. I would certainly feel responsible to spend some effort checking in areas I care about but that are outside my professional expertise (i.e. constitutional law).
So, I am all in with going hammer-and-tongs after ignorant anti-science blathering (and it should be noted that anti-vaccine delusions do not cut cleanly along ideological lines). But we weaken our arguments, IMO, if we do not do due diligence in fact-checking before we post. Back in the day, this meant hours in “the stacks” in the library, which is asking a lot, but nowadays a few minutes at cdc.gov is enough, which I think we should be able to do.