It’s no different form most things. Every fall you hear about all these people who won’t get a flu shot, 'cause last time they got the flu shot, they got the flu.
Of course this doesn’t happen with the flu shot, though it can happen with the flu nasal spray.
I used to compile stats and administer surveys for volunteer tests at the U of Chicago research center. There was one lady who had a baby and she had it vaccinated and it then was diagnosed as autistic. She refused to get her second child vaccinated and he has no issues. Her third child she had vaccinated and it is also diagnosed as autistic.
Now the fact is autism seems to have some kind of genetic element to it. So it is likely that a woman giving birth to an autistic child would at some point have another with the same or similar genetic problem, (be it autism or whatever).
But because of the order it happend there is nothing to every convince this woman that those vaccinations didn’t cause her autistic kids to get that. She’s convinced, and you’d never be able to convince her otherwise.
So you can see right or not, how or why some people react the way they do
And here we have an example of how the media’s handling of “controversies” works. There is no controversy among the experts and the experts are not mired down. There a small number of people who happen to have PhDs or such who are part of the fringe antivaxxer movement just like there are some PhDs who are Creationists but the experts are very sure. But the media’s equal attention to “both sides” (the CDC and the Institute of Health balanced by Jennie McCarthy and an MD who has been shown to have falsified his data and had taken money from lawyers who were planning on suing vaccine makers on the other) makes people like jack think that there is some disagreement among the experts, that they are mired in a controversy.
ARGH!
Look I spend the time and I reach most (not all) partly because I earn my cred along the way. But there are rooms that I leave and just ask myself why I bang my head up against that wall each time.
There’s no need to do this, but if one wants to look at actual research articles we have a thing now called the Internet, and you can pull up lots of articles (and well-written, easy to understand summaries of those articles) via Google and easy searches of the Pub Med scientific literature database.
Also there are many websites dedicated to presenting accurate information on vaccines, including this one. If one has a strong feeling that vaccines are bad, there are also lots of websites dedicated to antivax misinformation, and there are people who prefer having their prejudices reinforced as opposed to educating themselves.
The minute amount of mercury-based preservative (thimerosal) was removed from most childhood vaccines (the flu vaccine exception was noted earlier as well as the mercury-free flu vaccine alternative) starting in 1999, and despite it’s having been absent for years, autism incidence has not dropped precipitously, as you’d expect if thimerosal was the cause.
It’s the antivax agenda. Long before the autism scare began (and dating back to the earliest days of immunization), there’ve been people fervently resisting vaccination on the ground of government coercion, ungrounded health fears, because it’s “unnatural”, fear of needles, etc. etc. Add to that the persistent (and by some indications, growing) belief that there are widespread government/Big Pharma/Organized Medicine conspiracies to undermine our health, and you have a base of antivaxers eager to seize on any speculation in order to promote an antivaccine agenda. Spend time on a forum inhabited by such people (CureZone’s antivax forum is one such) and you’ll be amazed by the hostility, denial and outright lunacy (although the ravings make sense to a surprising number of people, including those who wind up on Larry King).
Part of the “secret agenda” by the anti-vax lobby is the desire to sue the government and vaccine manufacturers. The antis want money and lots of it for their beliefs that vaccines have caused everything from minor injuries to full blown illnesses such as autism.
Here’s one prominent example, the CureZone forums, where credulousness, paranoia and wackledoodlery coexist in harmony (except for the episodes of screaming and dung-flinging). Three of the hottest debate* forums there currently are the “Conspiracy Theories” forum, the “Vaccine Debate” forum and the “Chemtrails Debate” forum. There are people there who are heavily into all three.
*“Debate” is a misnomer, when only one side to the “debate” is permissible in a forum. I stop by there once in awhile to see what the current flavor of crazy is. Know thy opposition, and all that.
Indeed common sense indicates that vaccines are very useful for nearly eradicating certain previously devastating illnesses, but that’s not really the matter at contention, or at least as far as I’m aware, no one is disputing that. The matter of contention is whether vaccines have potentially harmful side effects such as autism. This is something that can not be determined solely from common sense, and requires some amount of research.
As far as Jenny and the antivax lobby, I personally wasn’t even aware of them. My awareness of the issue came from discussion with other people and things like an episode of Private Practice where it was the focus of one storyline (which was mostly pro-vax).
Who said anything about me? I’m pro-vax. I just think that being wary of vax is a reasonable position for other people to take given various factors that I’ve already outlined. Who are all these people telling me I’m wrong about something I’ve never claimed to believe? Go back and read what I actually wrote and stop making assumptions about me.
I agree that the media is part though not all of the problem.
Wow did you read what I actually wrote? I never said that this particular issue was mired in controversy. What I said was that there are enough issues that do have some amount of controversy, combined with the rest of the issues being reported on as though they also were in controversy, that it is very difficult for the average person to determine which issues actually are mired in controversy and which are being reported or presented that way for various reasons.
For example, one poster above wrote about the mercury amalgam dentistry issue as though it was another wacko concern that any minimal amount of research would show is delusional. But look at the wikipedia page, which is a reasonable initial source of information for a lay person, and tell me that wouldn’t be confusing for a layperson. Among other things, the page says that the ADA was formed over the issue of mercury itself, replacing the old dental organization that was against mercury because of the popularity of amalgams. They insisted that the mercury was bound in the amalgam and could not escape, but studies have since proven otherwise. It’s also been shown that the ADA has put a gag order on dentists from discussing any possible risks. Now it may end up that mercury fillings pose no danger whatsoever. But given the previous assertions of the ADA that mercury could not escape being proven false, along with their censorship of doctor patient discussions, how can you say that it’s unreasonable to question the ADA’s authority on the matter?
Again, this is not me arguing for my belief about the issues themselves; rather it’s me arguing against the arrogance of ‘authoritative’ sources being dismissive about laypeople’s concerns when authorities have been shown to have their own misbehavior.
I would say that it’s not always easy for the layperson to distinguish between those sources.
Conspiracies to undermine health specifically no, but a lack of concern for health when there’s a bigger motive like profit, sure why not? It’s not like these organizations have never been caught doing something detrimental. Big tobacco, Unsafe at any Speed, thalidomide, DDT, asbestos…Not saying that’s the case with vaccines specifically, just that no authority that exists has been shown to be free from problems, so blind acquiescence to authority is not a winning strategy.
Some of the hostility, denial, and lunacy comes from wackos, but some of it comes from a reaction to the bad behavior or attitudes of the professionals they have come into contact with. Ignorance does not appear spontaneously from a vacuum.
I find it amusing how reasonable that sounds to the same people that are aghast at some of the things other people believe.
Truly? It may be true that there are people who are offended because they hold that all “opinions” are equal and object to theirs being dismissed. On the other hand, given the number of issues regarding the common weal that are subject to the votes of the informed and the uninformed, I see no reason, in this forum, to champion ignorance.
Not at all, and I am surprised that you present this straw man as an argument. A reasonable person need only read the smidgen of science presented each week on the half-page section of each Saturday’s newspaper to stay abreast of the current discussions regarding medical science. (In fact, given that such sections of the paper are typically written by an actual science editor, those articles are probably a better source of information than the stuff that makes it onto the first page or the Op-Ed page, written by amateurs or people with vested interests.) A truly interested observer–even one with no scientific training–could subscribe to the bi-weekly Science News or read the monthly Discover in the library.
You have jumped to numerous assumptions not supported by facts, here. I have no particular training in vaccination medicine and I am quite willing to read the publications I have already noted to discover the current consensus among the scientific community. You appear to be arguing that I should ignore the information published at a general reading level that is written by professionals interested in promoting science while I give due consideration to Jenny McCarthy whose statements are flatly contradicted by every scientific publication. Do you also argue that I should pay attention to every Conspiracy Theorist regarding the government involvement with the WTC/Pentagon attacks? How about the common knowledge regarding the TriLateral Commission and the Illumimati or even the Masons?
There is no secret agenda and you are presenting another straw man. Scare mongering implies nothing more than that some person or group has some odd disbelief in the scientific process and that some media source chooses to give that person a platform in the interest of gaining a larger audience. One clear example is that bastion of silliness, 60 Minutes. They ran a big scare story on mercury fillings in which they made a point of quoting people who claimed to have had a reversal of symptoms the morning after having their fillings removed. My high school biology course from twenty years previously had already shown me that metal poisoning takes a long time to reverse as the metals are flushed from the system and that there was no way that the removal of fillings could cause such an immediate relief. Now, I do not expect everyone to have had as good a high school instructor as I had or to have paid attention as well as I did in class. However, when I see popular shows running nonsense for ratings or hysteria bankrupting a company such as Dow Corning when that company is ultimately exonerated by every scientific study, I find myself utterly unpersuaded that we need to “commend” people who ignore scientific evidence for the purpose of pushing their own scare tactics.
I am always interested in challenges to the current scientific thinking. Science is self-correcting, not infallible. However, when the scientific community has been examining and addressing the concerns of the scaremongers and nutcases for years, (or decades), and the evidence clearly runs against the scaremongers when reported in popular journals reporting actual science, then I see no reason to “commend” the scaremongers for continuing their emotional appeals to ignore the actual science.
This is not a matter of contention. Serious side effects occur but are quite rare, and their incidence has to be balanced against the much more common serious consequences when preventable infectious diseases are allowed to run rampant.
Not a side effect of vaccination.
Wariness as a starting point, fine. Failing to educate oneself with the help of one’s physician and all the the excellent sources available and working to deny children (one’s own and the children of others) the benefits of vaccination, not reasonable.
Oh really? What’s your source for this claim?
Resentment of “authority” is a part of the reason for antivax sentiments. There is also what has been termed the “arrogance of ignorance”, where people like Jenny McCarthy blithely assume that their selective Googling and sharing of anecdotes with like-minded people qualifies them to shout down experts who’ve spent their working lives in the field of immunization and public health.
The arrogance, it’s mind-boggling.
In none of the examples you’ve cited have public health experts lobbied for commercial products for any motive, including the profit motive. And in most of those cases they’ve been instrumental in reducing exposure to such products or eliminating them entirely. For instance, take thalidomide. I’ve run into a number of alternative medicine/anti-“Big Pharma” advocates who believe that deformed kids were born in the U.S. because the FDA approved thalidomide.* The truth is that the U.S. avoided the experience of countries like Germany and England because the FDA (specifically a FDA staffer named Dr. Frances Kelsey) refused to approve thalidomide as a drug.
*isolated cases of deformed births in the U.S. occurred in instances such as when people brought back thalidomide to the U.S. from other countries where it was a legal drug.
No, they are offended because their reasonable concerns are dismissed rather than addressed.
That same person will also see many articles that contradict or question the scientific ‘consensus’.
The point is that you consider yourself informed enough to be relatively secure in your understanding. And I wasn’t just addressing you specifically but anyone who feels relatively secure in their understanding, that there is a tendency to have “20/20 hindsight” - things always seem obvious once you know them, so there is a tendency to assume that whatever it is you know should also be immediately obvious to others who have not yet studied that issue.
Nope. Merely that those who have studied an issue should have more sympathy for the fact that the ‘obviousness’ of something is the result of studying an issue, and not the result of common sense.
That might reasonably be called scare mongering, since it is for ratings. I don’t think that groups of concerned people doing the same thing can be considered scare mongering since their motive is the health of their kids.
My original point was that you were saying common sense says vaccines are beneficial for disease eradication, but that that was irrelevant because that wasn’t what the issue was about, it was about side effects. And that while autism might have been proven not to be a side effect, this was not the sort of thing that could be ascertained merely by common sense in the same way that the fact that vaccines eradicate disease is.
I don’t think I’ve said anything that contradicts that.
The wiki article. It does have sources but they aren’t online. But even if the claims are false, that doesn’t negate my original point, which was that a reasonable initial research by a layperson would not find the issue of mercury filling to be obviously without controversy, and would not find the authoritative sources to be without some possible untrustworthiness.
Doctors routinely advocated smoking to patients, including pregnant patients, even after studies showing harmful effects. The ADA was formed to replace the original dental association because of the desire to ignore concerns about mercury fillings solely because of the popularity of amalgams. The executive branch has been shown to many times override public health concerns by censoring or changing environmental impact findings.
And the US has continued to approve some things that have been banned in other countries.
It’s a reasonable question.
But the ascribed nefarious motives for them is.
If the facts aren’t on their side then there is no danger.
Well the reason why this nonsense is taken seriously, is because we have civil courts, in which anti-scientific nonsense can be “proved”. Lawyers can find ignorant juries, which can be made to accept anything…I’m waiting for some ant-evolution lawsuit to succeed. Of course, this means that any medicine manufacturer can be sued successfully, and made to pay damages, for alleged harm that their medicine has done. The average american doesn’t realize how the legl industry has raised the cost of medical care, because of actions like this. The fact is, we will see vaccines disappear, because of te actions of lawyers.
But I guess people who decided that OJ Simpson didn’t murder his wife deserve this.
That is simply not true in the vast majority of cases. Reasonable concerns do tend to be addressed. In the case of side effects from vaccinations, however, the reasonable concerns were successfully addressed decades ago. There are only two sources of information that would cause a person to have a fear of vaccines, today: Celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy, (who is only the most recent of a long line of flakes who get their odd views aired simply by virtue of their celebrity), and irresponsible news outlets who choose to broadcast or publish nonsense in the quest for audience. The actual information is readily avasilable from popular news outlets for anyone who chooses to pay attention. Even the reporting of “controversy” is nothing more than audience chasing when the news outlets should have a staff that is sufficiently educated to recognize the fruit loops.
If I encounter a relative or friend in a casual setting who launches into a condemnation of the pharma industry for pushing vaccines, I will politely inform them of the facts. If I encounter someone pushing an agenda on a message board, I will still politely inform them of the facts. It is only when I meet resistance to the facts that are clearly based in willful ignorance that I might dismiss them while appealing to the larger audience with facts so that they are less successful in spreading their nonsense.
It really is very similar to any other Conspiracy Theories. Some people simply prefer to go with the most alarming stories rather than actually attempting to discover what has actually occurred.
I entered this discussion when you presented the false dilemma of either trusting authority or becoming authority. I simply have noted that there is a third way.
One can seek out reasonable sources of information to discover the actual discussion within the scientific community. I am aware that most people will not bother to do so, however, that does not mean that the option is unavailable. It simply means that most people expend their time and energy on thngs that matter to them and that much that goes on in science, (and economics and politics and law and dozens of other topics), does not interest them. If you wish to note that many people will not be aware of the facts, that is fine. When you claim that there are only two ways for people to make judgments, then I will note your error.
Pushing a lawsuit with no evidence to back it up isn’t nefarious? Wasting court time with a shoddy argument isn’t a bad thing?
Scaremongering about vaccination is very dangerous. If fewer people vaccinate as a result of such scaremongering then you get a breakdown in herd immunity and more outbreaks of infectious and contagious disease.
This is what happened in Africa after Imams preached against the polio vaccine. Polio had been on the verge of erradication and then came back and spread as a result. That’s what happened in the UK after Andrew Wakefield’s shoddy research on the MMR vaccine was widely publicized. They had outbreaks of measles.
Regarding jackdavinci’s statement about amalgam (mercury-containing) fillings, I don’t see anything in the Wikipedia article (biased as it is about alleged amalgam filling hazards) about an American Dental Association “gag order” preventing dentists from discussing benefits and alleged risks of this filling material. What the ADA has opposed is the quackery of some dentists telling patients that multiple sclerosis and other chronic illnesses are due to amalgam fillings, and that they need to have all those fillings yanked out and replaced (at high cost, not counting the pain of the procedures). That doesn’t sound to me like a “gag order”. More like “your membership in the ADA is in jeopardy if you profit from quackery”.
“Reasonable initial research” would not stop with a wiki article whose neutrality is disputed. If you dismiss “the authoritative sources” simply because you don’t trust “authorities”, while at the same time believing uneducated twits like Jenny McCarthy, you’re not a “reasonable layperson” seeking truth, you’re someone with an agenda seeking confirmation of your biases.
As others have suggested, we can’t hope to reach the wackaloons and the deniers with their fingers in their ears chanting “na-na-na, I reject your science”. We can correct their errors and lies, while using facts and effective strategies to reach the people who are wavering, and who are still susceptible to the truth.
Not a chance in Hell. Ant-vaxers are a minority, albeit a very vocal one. Most children are still getting vaccinated. Yes, we will see(and indeed, have seen) an increase in childhood diseases that were much rarer (like measles,) but there is no way that a few crazy nutcases are going to put an end to what is the greatest discovery in modern medicine.
To answer the OP, I think the vaccines = autism theory has spread enough that I know people who don’t even believe in it that are suddenly putting their kids on staggered vaccination schedules so that they don’t get too many at once. It’s generally written off as “the kids do better” etc.-though I find it hard to understand how your kids “do better” with a staggered schedule when they were never on the regular schedule to begin with. That said, I find staggering the schedule and extra doctors appointments to be preferable to not vaccinating children at all. My main concern is that it runs up costs unnecessarily.
I think that basically the shrillness/insistence of the anti-vaxers and the fear of having a special needs child when you could have easily avoided it have put the fear in the back of many minds.
What we need is more research on the** real** causes of autism spectrum disorders and removing the stigma from them and the people who have them. Unfortunately since the anti-vaxers are so shrill, the day when that comes is looking further in the distance.