Pro-Vaccination Efforts May Be Scaring Wary Parents From Shots 482
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Thomas Kienzle reports for the Associated Press on a study which found public health campaigns touting vaccines' effectiveness and debunking the links between autism and other health risks might actually be backfiring, and convincing parents to skip the shots for their kids. 'Corrections of misperceptions about controversial issues like vaccines may be counterproductive in some populations,' says Dr. Brendan Nyhan. 'The best response to false beliefs is not necessarily providing correct information.' In the study, researchers focused on the now-debunked idea that the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (or MMR) caused autism. Surveying 1,759 parents, researchers found that while they were able to teach parents that the vaccine and autism were not linked, parents who were surveyed who had initial reservations about vaccines said they were actually less likely to vaccinate their children after hearing the researchers messages. Researchers looked at four methods designed to counter the myth (PDF) that the MMR vaccine can cause autism. They gave people either information from health authorities about the lack of evidence for a connection, information about the danger of the three diseases the MMR vaccine protects against, pictures of children who had one of those three diseases, or a story about an infant who almost died from measles.
At the study's start, the group of parents who were most opposed to vaccination said that on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child against MMR was 70 percent. After these parents had been given information that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, they said, on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child was only 45 percent — even though they also said they were now less likely to believe the vaccine could cause autism. Vaccination rates are currently high, so it's important that any strategies should focus on retaining these numbers and not raise more concerns, tipping parents who are willing to vaccinate away from doing so. 'We shouldn't put too much weight on the idea that there's some magic message out there that will change people's minds.'"
At the study's start, the group of parents who were most opposed to vaccination said that on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child against MMR was 70 percent. After these parents had been given information that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, they said, on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child was only 45 percent — even though they also said they were now less likely to believe the vaccine could cause autism. Vaccination rates are currently high, so it's important that any strategies should focus on retaining these numbers and not raise more concerns, tipping parents who are willing to vaccinate away from doing so. 'We shouldn't put too much weight on the idea that there's some magic message out there that will change people's minds.'"
You would hope (Score:5, Interesting)
This recessive gene would be removed from the gene pool in one or two iterations of viral infections.
Re: (Score:3)
You would be wrong. If human stupidity were truly genetic, that would still be an easy answer that ignores things like herd immunity.
Re:Sinister? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vaccines have had numerous concerns over many decades, so the latest batch does not make people sinister it makes them cynical and skeptical. Start here [wikipedia.org].
As much as vaccines help the majority of people, other people have been crippled and killed by the same vaccines. The latest MMR vaccine is linked to a couple hundred (237 last I looked) of narcolepsy, the latest polio vaccine is linked to numerous deaths and various levels of paralysis. Sometimes these are blamed on contamination in the vaccine, and other times we have no explanation.
If you are a parent and know about the potential for harm, you may not wish to give your kid a vaccine. Especially for something generally not life threatening like chicken pox.
Why not educate people to both sides of the argument and let them make an educated choice?
There is middle ground on normally nonlife threatening diseases like chickenpox and the average flu bug, the problem is dumbasses that won't vaccs their kids against anything for fear they might be one of the couple hundred out of billions that would have a reaction then insted their kid get a disease and spread it to the immunocompromised that genuinely cannot get vaccinated. They are endangering their children and society over a risk lower than the odds of you getting hit by car tomorrow on the way to drop them at school yet they do drive their children.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose that's true in some sense, thanks to fabulous iron lung [wikipedia.org] technology. Ain't science grand?
Risk Education (Score:3)
As much as vaccines help the majority of people, other people have been crippled and killed by the same vaccines.
True but the rates of serious, life changing reactions to the vaccine are far, far smaller than the risk of serious, life changing complications from a disease like measles that can leave you blind brain damaged or 0.3% of the time dead. This horrible consequences of diseases is why we invented vaccines and why they were so widely adopted. The problem is that vaccines are now a victim of their own success because nobody gets measles now so there is no understanding of how horrible these diseases can be.
Re: (Score:3)
The numbers show that the Chicken Pox vaccine should only
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually this knowledge is counter to evolution. Our evolution has shaped the survival mind to trust only your self and those extremely close to you and be extremely wary of others.
Pro-vaccination messages should really pursue the "trust" model, and get commuity leaders, churches, womens magazines etc to all join in the discussion and focus on the positive only. Don't even mention all the false autism links etc...
Re:You would hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Been saying it for a while: many, many people have lost any and all trust in establishmentarianism, even when some of them simultaneously cling to strange authoritative belief systems, and as the "Information Age" progresses this is extending to a fundamental mistrust of well presented information. Mainly because liars are some of the best presenters out there.
Every single ethics violation by established corporations, professionals, professional organizations, media, and other would-be pillars of the community has long lasting and far reaching effects, damaging our aggregate level of trust in those who actually deserve to be trusted. The damage is probably partially offset by trusting even fewer of those who don't deserve it, but overall my instinct is it is corrosive since trust plays such an important role in all things economic and communal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You would hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You would hope (Score:5, Informative)
Wow that's so much misinformation and tinfoil hat thinking in one place.
Ahhh.. so many of those that died from measles where probably vaccinated but it was not effective?
I'm not even sure what this means as you provide no information. I assume you mean recent outbreaks [wikipedia.org] in which the vast majority occurred because people had not been vaccinated.
So why get it when measles can be beaten with high dose vitamin A?
Again I'm not sure where your misinformation comes from but the WHO recommends high doses of vitamin A with the vaccine [who.int] to poorly nourished children in developing countries to kill two birds with one stone.
Don't they test these vaccines? Are there any in depth studies of the effectiveness of vaccines?
[Citation please for your misinformation] Decades [vaccines.gov] of research is easy to google btw.
How about Paul "Profit" Offit's poop vaccine?
Again you provide little information on what is in your mind. I can only assume you mean the rotavirus vaccine [wikipedia.org] which he spent 25 years developing. It saves many, many lives a day. For 25 years of research, he gets money from his invention. So what?
How much was that studied before it was rubber stamped as recommended while he was at the CDC?
Does a clinical trial of 70,000 [sfgate.com] count as rubber-stamping? Again so much misinformation.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/offit-congressional-reprimand/
If that is your only source of information, I suggest you need to fact check it. For example, it wasn't a reprimand. It was a report. In it, he voted for rotavirus vaccines (and this important) that he did not develop. He abstained from voting for the one he did develop with Merck. As for the rest of the blog, misinformation and outright lies. For example, Hanah Poling's family was awarded money for encephalopathy [examiner.com] which is not due to a vaccine. The anti-vaccine crowd claims it was for autism but anyone reading the full report sees otherwise. Misinformation at best.
Pig Pharma is not to be trusted and that is why parents aren't getting their kids vaccinated.
So much bias and irrational thinking there. I assume that you also advice parents not to give children aspirin as well as they also make billions for the industry.
Vaccines are not a bad idea per se for some things, but there is very little ethics in the industry, and as past practices have come to light over the years it does not appear that there ever was any.
[Citation Please] Other than a blog from someone who is completely biased.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just plain wrong. Vaccines are not 100% effective in people who take them. Herd immunity still plays a factor.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably. Vaccinations aren't 100%, you know. But if enough people are vaccinated, the herd immunity will wind up protecting even if the vaccine fails.
And if you're not vaccinated because a medical condition prevents it (compromised immune systems and vaccines don't mix), well, I guess it just sucks to b
Re:You would hope (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're vaccinated, it's not going to affect you.
In our valley a daughter of vaccination sceptics (i.e. she was un-vaccinated) contracted Whooping cough. She then passed the disease onto a vaccinated child at school.
Given that vaccines cannot confer immunity in 100% of cases, and given that people are not always in the state of health required for their "immunity" to fight off an infection, herd immunity remains a major factor the effectiveness of vaccination.
When you decide not to vaccinate your child, you are making health decisions (potentially life and death decisions) for other children as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you are part of a very small percentage of the population. If everyone was vaccinated except for people such as yourself you would likely be safe as unvaccinated people would statistically be unlikely to be in contact with one another and thus have no one to catch the disease from.
Re:You would hope (Score:5, Informative)
And if I'm not vaccinated because I can't be vaccinated?
Who are you? Fucking Superman? Needles break against your skin?
Some people have compromised immune systems. Getting a live vaccine could be quite fatal for them. It has nothing to do with being a Superman that can't be penetrated by needles. This is your lesson for the day. Grab the clue and ride it for all it is worth!
Education (Score:2, Interesting)
People need to be educated in a general sense to evaluate this stuff rationally. If you take a bunch of uneducated redneck hicks and have an authority figure tell them how it should be they're going to be suspicious because they don't have the tools to evaluate the claims and for most of their life authority figures have FUCKED them.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, people are fucking morons.
Re:Education (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, people are fucking morons.
Apparently those untrusting "fucking morons" are in very good company.
Re: (Score:3)
We have a vaccination against stupid, it's called "a liberal education"
Re: (Score:2)
Read Tres Roeder's "A Sixth Sense for Project Management" and get back to me.
Re:Education (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to be educated in a general sense to evaluate this stuff rationally. If you take a bunch of uneducated redneck hicks and have an authority figure tell them how it should be they're going to be suspicious because they don't have the tools to evaluate the claims and for most of their life authority figures have FUCKED them.
And yet..., they will still vote for those same authority figures who simply tell them what they want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell them that the gubmint says "DON'T VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN!!!1!"
Re:Education (Score:5, Insightful)
Well,I think you're onto something, although it's certainly not the case that anti-vaccination ideology is confined to "uneducated redneck hicks". It is rampant among educated, middle class people too who *do* have the tools to evaluate claims. They just don't have the inclination to use those tools. I know because I have a niece who is an anti-vaccine crusader; she's always posting links to anti-vaccine screeds on Facebook, only to get knocked down by all her science geek aunties and uncles. She is not an ignorant, uneducated moron. She is an intelligent, accomplished and educated suburban mom who just happens to be off her rocker about this one thing.
The problem, I think, is that anti-vaccine hysteria actually arises out a healthy impulse: distrust of authority. We've raised a generation on tales of the Tuskeegee experiment, of bungled CIA actions in Iran, of government leaders' deceptions about the course of the Vietnam war. But the line between healthy distrust and paranoia is often fuzzy. In attempting to raise a generation of healthy skeptics, we've also made paranoia respectable.
This explains the counter-intuitive result in the study. Convincing people to distrust anti-vaccine information doesn't make them trust their doctors or public health authorities. It makes them distrust everyone. And some of the mud probably still sticks. Here's where knowing what the anti-vaccine crowd is saying helps. They've moved well beyond the autism thing; their message has two prongs: "vaccines aren't as effective as claimed" and "vaccines put children at risk for a wide spectrum of harms".
Finally there's another misunderstood aspect about who these people are. They've been raised to admire crusaders like Dr. King who stood up against authority figures, and they've been taught to emulate them. We've raised them to be firm and determined in their convictions, even the face of ridicule and condemnation. But that attitude of Emersonian self-reliance has a dark side: it's very hard to change your mind once you've donned your crusader surcoat and drawn your greatsword.
So the idea that these people are anti-vaccine crusaders *because* they're contemptible is wrong. These people are attempting to do something heroic. In other circumstances they *would* be heroic. The problem with self-righteousness is that it feels *exactly the same* as righteousness.
Re: (Score:3)
If they're going to evaluate it rationally, shouldn't it start with the authority actually being honest about potential side effects? I'm kind of tired of listing to the vaccines/vaccines/rah rah rah cheerleading. Give me real information, pre vaccination testing to limit problems, and a willingness to contraindicate where necessary.
I know you're being sarcastic, but this actually works. Drug companies have found that including very bad potential side-effects of a drug can make the advertising more effective [pharmatimes.com]. So maybe they should carefully list all the possible adverse reactions to vaccinations to get more people to get them.
Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Interesting)
That bit of information reduces the problem to a much, much easier one to deal with than the previous hypothesis of willful ignorance - These people just need us to give them a way to save face.
Disclaimer - I write what I write next as someone who loathes government intervention. But just make vaccinations mandatory. Simple as that. No more BS opting out on religious grounds, no more opting out because Jenny said not to, no more trusting in herd immunity while actively undermining it. Get your kids vaccinated, period, end of story; don't like it, too bad.
That way, no one needs to "back down" - Parents can gleefully shrug their shoulders, swear at Uncle Sam while quietly breathing a sigh of relief, and we can all move on as though none of this ever happened.
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Insightful)
But just make vaccinations mandatory. Simple as that. No more BS opting out on religious grounds, no more opting out because Jenny said not to, no more trusting in herd immunity while actively undermining it. Get your kids vaccinated, period, end of story; don't like it, too bad.
There will always be valid exceptions. Some people (immune-compromised, usually) simply can't handle vaccination - it really would kill them. This is a recognized problem for which there is no solution. And which vaccines should be required? I happen to think that immunization against HPV is a good idea, but you can't get HPV because the kid next to you didn't cover his mouth when he sneezed.
There is historical precedent for your proposal, however: this is what was done with smallpox, which is why no one has caught smallpox since before I was born. But smallpox makes measles look like a mild cold in comparison.
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Insightful)
But just make vaccinations mandatory. Simple as that. No more BS opting out on religious grounds, no more opting out because Jenny said not to, no more trusting in herd immunity while actively undermining it. Get your kids vaccinated, period, end of story; don't like it, too bad.
There will always be valid exceptions. Some people (immune-compromised, usually) simply can't handle vaccination - it really would kill them. This is a recognized problem for which there is no solution.
Actually, there is a well-understood solution. Just make the vaccines mandatory, and provide exceptions based on the medical judgement of a doctor (who is liable if their error results in harm).
The kids who can't get vaccines are much better off if all the kids around them are vaccinated.
Instead today we let everybody opt-out, and the kid who can't get a vaccine for medical reasons ends up catching whooping cough from somebody who could have been vaccinated without incident.
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy: Make a vaccination plan.
In Europe, that's what happens. Guess what? Every time you sign up for something involving lots of people, you may be asked for proof that you were actually vaccinated (or could not be for valid medical reasons).
Some stuff is absolutely mandatory, for good reason. Some stuff can be bought at a pharmacy if required (Malaria for instance, isn't really a problem unless you travel to Africa) and is thus optional.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But just make vaccinations mandatory
Devil's advocate: What part of the United States Constitution (or even the Constitution of one of the 50 States) authorizes the Government to compel vaccination? It's "compelled" through requirements to vaccinate your children before they can attend public school, which has passed muster, but an outright mandate absent no other interaction with the State? Where does such authority come from?
No more BS opting out on religious grounds
That wouldn't pass Constitutional muster even if you can find authority to mandate vaccinations.
A far more effecti
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:4, Informative)
Compelled vaccination would fall under implied power. Random fact of the day: ICE's jurisdiction is an implied power.
Here are the relevant parts of the constitution:
"Implied powers are which can reasonably be assumed to flow from express powers, though not explicitly mentioned. The legitimacy of these powers flows from the "General Welfare" clause in the Preamble, the "Necessary & Proper Clause", and the "Commerce Clause." " (Quote from Wikipedia)
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. The general public gets just as much, if not more protection than the individual through herd immunity. The whole systems depends on herd immunity.
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Herd immunity is a critical by-product of individual immunizations, and allows those who can't be (or by biological fluke, don't get) immunized.
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Interesting)
There are babies who are too young to be vaccinated and people who have immune system issues or allergies which mean they can't get the vaccines. These people are relying on all of us to be vaccinated for herd immunity to kick in. If one or two people don't vaccinate because "A friend said it causes autism", then honestly it's not a big deal. Herd immunity will remain in place. But when large amounts of people stop vaccinating because "Jenny McCarthy said it has toxins in it" (just before she got a Botox injection, mind you), herd immunity breaks down and those who rely on herd immunity suffer.
If not vaccinating only meant that the non-vaccinated got sick, I'd be against mandatory vaccinations and would instead just strongly urge people to do so. However, since one person's lack of vaccination can easily affect another person (or dozen people), vaccinations should be mandatory (with only health exemptions allowed).
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the constitution allows parents to compel their children not to get vaccinated (or to get vaccinated, for that matter)? If we're going to talk about this in terms of individual freedom, shouldn't we consider the individuals actually affected?
Re: (Score:3)
What part of the constitution allows parents to compel their children not to get vaccinated
If the parents didn't compel them; then very likely, few or no children would get vaccinated, just due to the pain of being poked by a needle.
But the children are minors, that is: not recognized as sovereign individuals --- instead, the parents are custodians of their health and well-being, and therefore --- the parents have the right to make the decisions that the child is not capable of responsibly making.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "compelled" through requirements to vaccinate your children before they can attend public school, which has passed muster, but an outright mandate absent no other interaction with the State? Where does such authority come from?
OK... fine... you prove that you've been vaccinated against Measles, Polio, and other contagions once every 15 years, and you get a golden sticker attached to your arm, or a little rice-grain sized RFID tag implanted, linking to your database ID that proves that you are
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
However, the problem is that the school boards have also allowed exclusions for "religious or personal beliefs", which is a crock.
Exemptions for religious beliefs are a crock? Those are well supported in the case law. School boards allow them because the case law says they'll lose if they try to fight it in Court and most school districts don't have spare cash laying around to throw at lawyers.
Religious and personal beliefs are a crock in this situation. Specifically, your right to believe that vaccinations are a direct ejaculation from Satan's loins is one thing, but when your unvaccinated child goes to a park and spreads the disease to younger children, too young to be vaccinated, that's the point where their religious beliefs become irrelevant.
You have the right to believe anything you want--what you don't have the right to do is risk other peoples' lives for your beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory? Fascism much?
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory? Fascism much?
Uh, no.
It isn't "fascism" to say your unvaccinated-child may not infect my too-young-to-be-vaccinated child with a preventable disease and risk his life/kill him. In general, your "freedom" to choose an activity end at the point that you're harming another person.
Re: (Score:2)
You do need exceptions on medical grounds, though - people with a compromised immune system can't handle the vaccine. But once you have one set of exceptions, it's really hard not to provide exceptions on religious grounds, because religion has gotten so many exceptions for so many things.
Even if you did get it limited to "can only be unvaccinated on a doctor's orders", there's plenty of doctors who can be persuaded to bend the rules - look at the rates of approval for medical marijuana in states where medi
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:4, Insightful)
This study basically says that people get pissy when you prove them wrong, making them dig in their heels even though they may grudgingly agree with you.
Nope. It says that teaching the controvery proves there is a controversy. If there wasn't, why are you trying so hard to tell me what I should do?
Re: (Score:2)
Note, I am all for vaccinations, but in today's world, I'm increasingly cautious because governments health agencies don't do their jobs in proper science or oversight...
Re: (Score:2)
governments health agencies don't do their jobs in proper science or oversight
Government health agencies like the FDA have a very difficult job. For every person complaining that they're in bed with industry and allow dangerous medications to kill people, there's someone else - usually either a "patient's rights" advocate or an especially dogmatic libertarian - complaining that they're withholding lifesaving medications and therefore killing people. It's also extremely difficult to identify every possible
Re: (Score:2)
the same thing that you would do if you don't vaccinate and your kid gets measles and ends up permanently deaf, in the end it's about probabilities, the probability of measles having bad side effects seems a LOT higher than the probability of vaccines having bad side effects, ergo it should be obvious what to do.
This said people are not rational, the odds of getting run over crossing the street are much higher than a lot of other events people worry way more about...
Re:Wrong, study shows disfavor with science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
Re:Wrong, study shows disfavor with science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
You know, I don't usually support insults like this, but SuperKendall's post shows such a level of willful ignorance and misinformation that I think in this case MightyMartian isn't actually insulting him but stating a fact.
Re:Wrong, study shows disfavor with science. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's the part where he makes unsubstantiated claims of bias and corruption against every scientist ever?
You only have to look back through his post history to see it all stems from his personal (and equally unsubstantiated) belief that AGW is a massive, money-grabbing hoax that all those "so-called scientists" have foisted on the unsuspecting public, no doubt at the prompting of the current liberal gubbermint (you know, despite similar research for 30 years). Seems clear to me that the cynicism resulting from climate science not saying what he wants to hear has spilled over into science in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. I believe strongly in making rational choices based on sound knowledge. Because of that, I have found that about 90% of what the pharmaceutical industry would have me believe these days is 100% pure crap. Many people have noticed that.
Once you degenerate to that point, even when you tell the truth, people will assume you are lying. It's a simple heuristic that is more often right than wrong. So the more you talk up the jabs, the more people assume you're lying.
To make that stop, we're going
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is less about not trusting government specifically, and more about trusting vague sources that come with plausible sounding explanations.
Look at the hand waving BS about vaccinations, they are almost always centered around a grain of truth, a grain that is then added to and changed. Some great examples are "mercury" in vaccines or "hormones" in bovines.
The thing is, it is always presented as something "they" don't want you to know about, or are claiming is safe, so when you hear from an expert th
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit, frankly. It's possible to understand the science despite not having done the research and experimentation personally. SuperKendall's pretty much 100% full of shit.
No, it has everything to do with people unable to think critically about the messages being directed t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. They way I see it, you have a political party populated by folks who view reality as merely an opposing (and invalid) viewpoint.
Due to the US's 2-part system and the "if you're not for us, you must be against us" line of thinking, anyone who doesn't agree with the viewpoints of such a political must be part of the opposing side.
It's not the scientists that are politicizing science, it's the science-deniers.
Re: (Score:3)
This message brought to you by the American Institute for Homeopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Vaccination Choice, Climate Change Denial, AIDS denial, Rejection of Evolution and Chiropractors.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress?
Re:Wrong, study shows disfavor with science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if you want them to be trusted, you should start trusting them and stop spreading your anti-AGW lies. And while you're at it, perhaps you should try to distinguish the latest fad diet from some idiot who wrote a self-help book, or whatever some "science reporter" has tried to pass off as science to sell magazines, from the actual peer reviewed articles in journals that comprise actual science.
Re: (Score:3)
" From nutritional advice"
dactiors have been giveg the follwong advice for decades: Exercise and eat better.
"the AGW cult,"
Ah. You just assume scientist are wrong when the data goes against your narrative and then project that to others.
"But science is now so intertwined in politics "
it isn't, but again, they are telling you things you don't like, so ad hom away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We seem to be okay with the mandate to feed children, and to provide at least a minimum level of medical care for them, even against the wishes of their parents. It's not clear how vaccinations are fundamentally different from those existing mandates.
Plus we have a long history of promoting public health over individual freedom in a whole slew of contexts, sometimes including confinement.
Re: (Score:2)
Come along Mr. AC, it's time for your government mandated happy shots! We can't have you grumping around about wars and taxes you know, that's contagious.
Don't make me get the hammer!
Re: (Score:2)
No it shouldn't. Children are individuals in their own right, not property of their parents to be abused on a whim.
The person being forced is the parents. The person whose good it's for is the child.
You're a fucking idiot and a total asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard of a pig in a poke, but never one up a chimney. And I know about these things.
Re: (Score:2)
They also have a big messaging problem. When a person gets a polio vaccine the assumption is that they won't get polio. Yet every year these same people hear the newscasters saying that they should get a flu vaccine. The words don't mean the same thing to the public as they do to the researchers or the doctors. If they would clean up the language I suspect their success rates would improve.
We have a problem, but it is only partly the "messaging." The other part is the "population that can barely read at an aggregate 4th grade level" problem. Specifically, we live in a nation of morons that squeaks through high school with a minimal amount of required "hard-science" and can even get university degrees that require minimal or zero science education (Bachelor of Arts, anyone?) and can then consider themselves "educated" besides knowing neither jack nor shit beyond 12th grade science, and only ha
Re: (Score:3)
they send a man to your house to shoot you.
Home vaccine delivery. Nice!
There are degrees of government pressure between total laissez-faire and shooting you. The stunningly obvious example is jail. To within experimental error, nobody ever seriously suggests execution for non-vaccinators (or small-time tax-evaders, or, or, or...), but you will find people in favour of some amount of jail time for those. There are other possible methods such as withheld services -- this is used for unvaccinated children often, which is especially justifiable sinc
Re: (Score:3)
Proportion. 9 months of carrying a fetus plus 18 years of child care (unless you give the baby up for adoption) vs a 5 second needle stick and 10 hours of a sore arm. And if a woman decides to have an abortion after a condom breaks, that's not going to give her roommate the measles.
Too much information... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you order a burger from McDonalds you probably wouldn't be too happy if worker who gives it to you said "don't worry, the chances of you having got a burger that has been spat on are tiny so it is very unlikely I spat in it! Enjoy your meal!"
Re: (Score:3)
The answer is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Jenny McCarthy needs to be impoverished and imprisoned for the huge disservice she has done the human race.
Re: (Score:2)
Or she can just stay at my place... I certainly wouldn't mind. I'll even let her eat crackers in bed.
Re: (Score:2)
She needs to OD on nicotine [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they are their own problem. (Score:2, Interesting)
They claim the skeptics are just crazy, but then things like this (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/the-return-of-whooping-cough.html ) happen.
I am not anti-vaccine, but I am cautious around people profess to "practice" on me and think everything can be solved with a pill or needle. For example, I think there is a problem with our healthcare system when we end up as a nation (USA) consuming 80% of all painkillers prescribed worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I think there is a problem with our healthcare system when we end up as a nation (USA) consuming 80% of all painkillers prescribed worldwide
Painkillers are a social addiction problem, not a healthcare problem.
.
In order to solve a problem, you first must identify it accurately.
Re: (Score:2)
one factor... (Score:3)
I believe that one factor (don't have any idea how significant) may be that recent revelations entirely unrelated to vaccines have caused an increased suspicion amongst the population about anything the government tells us. It's become almost a meme that whatever the government says, the opposite is likely to be true.
(I'm not saying that's actually the case, just saying that may be what people are feeling.)
"I am NOT a child molester!" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better than the alternative, though one would kind of have to admire the second guy for his forthrightness. ;)
The whole is greater... (Score:2)
They gave people either information from health authorities about the lack of evidence for a connection, information about the danger of the three diseases the MMR vaccine protects against, pictures of children who had one of those three diseases, or a story about an infant who almost died from measles.
What if people were given some combination of the above information? For example, connection information and picture of children with the disease. The outcome might be different than either information alone. Given alone "connection information" may be detrimental but combined with other information it may be beneficial. All this study shows is that relying on the lack of evidence of connection alone is incorrect.
I would have liked to see the effect of giving a group all the information. I realize we are no
Why Free Market Ideology Doesn't Work (Score:2)
People are generally not rational in the classic economic sense. Not even close.
Because Jenny McCarthy is always right. (Score:4, Insightful)
That stupid bitch.
Cannot convince those who don't want to be ... (Score:2)
.
It is far easier to remain ignorant and wallow in your collection of misinformation, than to understand the scientific evidence.
Normally, I don't have an issue with ignorant people choosing to remain ignorant. Unfortunately, in this instance it means more disease for all of us.
I'd say this solidly confirms... (Score:2)
Can we just take all the anti-vaccine people and put them on an island, and wait for them to die out? Antarctica is a research area, right?
How do you prove that they are wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
People do not trust science. They are more apt to believe that the numbers are made up fill some agenda.
On the Right you got them having issues with Climate change and evolution. They see it as fake science made by their opponents to force their agenda of taking things away from people and a push towards atheism, figure with "God" out of the way they can push their agenda with impunity.
On the left you have GMO food, and non-organics food. All the science points that there isn't any danger to these foods, however they will stick to their guns as the science is obviously have been altered by corporations as to keep their profit up.
In short if you tell someone that they are wrong, that means you are part of some conspiracy to hide the truth.
Droot droot wibble, no more curry for me, vicar. (Score:3)
And if you provide supporting evidence of your point, that's obviously part of the scam too; I mean, if you were right you wouldn't need it. Whereas if there's no evidence of a conspiracy, that's proof that there's a cover-up.
Small children and the elderly (Score:2)
Everyone else can ignore this issue... unless you live in an area prone to insane viral outbreaks every other week.
Can't win with morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In Belgium certain vaccinations are mandatory. Well they aren't mandatory as such, but your kids won't be able to go to daycare, school, sports clubs etc. without them.
Informed decision (Score:2)
Just needs an infographic (Score:3)
On one side: Miss October '93. On the other: a million scientists, an airplane, and a hypodermic needle.
Caption: "If you trust SCIENCE to keep your kids safe when flying in an airplane at 600 MPH, five miles off the ground, why don't you trust it about medicine?"
Sub-caption: "Would you rather your kids be autistic, or DEAD?"
Re:The more someone yells (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in an age of propaganda, mendaciousness, and manipulation. PR-men are literally in charge of public policy. A positive public information campaign reliant on trust is impossible in our present circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds all edgy and clever, until you look at who actually dies. Hint: Not just their kids.
Re:And Who Didn't See This Coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes mockery is also required. Responding to lies with truth can easily create the impression of a debate of two respectable sides, when the more accurate perception is that one has arguments and the other has cheating and manipulation. In that situation, it's not enough to just point out the errors: They must be mocked without mercy to make it clear that the position is not only wrong, but so wrong as to be laughable and not worthy of any respect.
Re:You cannot UN-VACCINATE your child or pet (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, uhm. They're pretty fucking lethal and debilitating. One of my friends has a sibling who's been hospitalized for a big chunk of the last six months from whooping cough, which exists today only because of anti-vaccine nutjobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Flu Shots are Ruining Vaccinations (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally flu shots aren't for you. They're for the people you hang out with.
I'm a healthy early 30something guy. I can get the flu, I've had the flu, I made it out just fine. I also only hang out with people in the similar demographic, I'm psychologically allergic to kids so I'll never be seen around one, my friends overall don't have kids, my grandparents are in another country. There's a small chance I may get the flu and before I notice, I transmit it to someone at the restaurant, but realistically, it won't happen.
Now, if you're the parent of 3 toddlers, have your 80-90 years old grandparents coming every other day to help out, 2 of your toddlers go to daycare all the time... you could seriously get someone killed if you get the flu and spread it around. Thats why you want the shot. If its not the case? Sure, skip. The flu won't kill you.
Re:Flu Shots are Ruining Vaccinations (Score:4, Insightful)
Tens of thousands of people die every single year from flu. My wife is an ICU nurse and watches people die every year from it. Yes you might be healthy and perfectly capable of handling the flu virus. But when you get it, for the three or four days after you are infected and before major symptoms set in you are spreading virii around like typhoid Mary. And when you go to the grocery store and stand in line next to the guy that just had a transplant and is on immune surpressors you might just kill them.
Sometimes getting the vaccine isn't about you. So next time you get the flu spend the time thinking about all the people you interacted with while you were a walking virus factor and wonder just how many of them your stupidity killed.
Re:Flu Shots are Ruining Vaccinations (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry, but you're a fucking moron. There's really no polite way to put it. The flu is traditionally the most lethal contagious disease in world history; more people have been killed by it than pretty much anything else. That's because nasty variants trigger a cytokine storm which is a positive feedback loop where your body kills itself because it thinks something is killing it. Even worse, those storms are most dangerous in people with a strong immune system. That's right: the bad flus kill young, healthy people in much greater proportion than those with weak immune systems.
Go ahead and brag at how tough you are at resisting the flu. While doing so, pray to your god that you never get a bad one and join the ranks of millions who've died of it over the years.