There was absolutely no factual basis behind the scaremongering about polio vaccines in Africa. The rumor was that the polio vaccines contained birth control drugs, put there as an attempt by people in the non-Islamic world to reduce the birth rate in the Islamic world. There is no birth control drug that could be administered to children that would still work when they reached reproductive age. Birth control implants or Depo-Provera don’t last that long. People believed the rumors and didn’t immunize their children, even though the rumors are clearly ridiculous to anyone who does a minimum of research.
That’s why rumors are so dangerous. Rumors can be utterly implausible to a knowledgeable person, but still be believed by a lot of people. Snopes has a large collection of examples.
That’s a commendably pragmatic approach. But it presents its own problems. If you’re willing to negotiate with the alternative schedule folks, that might make them think you’re acknowledging that there really is some reason why several vaccines shouldn’t be given at once. Of course, you don’t mean to do that, and you probably tell them that that’s not what you’re doing, but people are good at finding evidence that reinforces what they want to believe.
That’s just nasty. Me pointing out your clear and obvious failure to read what I actually wrote before making false comments about it does not equal me CMA.
That seems pretty clear, to me, that rather than suggesting that one take the time to do a bit of research, one should simply challenge anyone who might express an opinion. Since you did not specifiy which people to question or how to determine good information, (beyond the answers “seeming” “plausible”), it looked pretty much like more of a defense of people who follow the CT gang and not at all the search for truth you now claim it to have meant…
Perhaps that is not how you intended it, but that is what I read in your post.
I’m sorry for not being clear. I mean, I thought I was at least clear that I was presenting those two extremes as impossible and presenting the only realistic choice as somewhere between those two extremes - but you seem to have thought I was saying that only those two extremes are possible, which is the opposite of what I was intending to say. But now it seems I was also not clear in what I was saying about the pragmatic choice. By “questioning” I simply meant seeking answers, whether though consulting with others or doing research. I didn’t mean it merely in the sense of challenging others.
There’s a new mag I saw at my local bookstore, I think it’s Autism File, and it has several anti- Vaccination articles, including one about how dangerous thimerosal is- which is not longer generally used in the uSA.
Note that Genetic factors seem to be the most significant cause for autism, which is why parents reach out to blame *anything *else.
Perhaps. OTOH we in the West are very resistant to having control wrested from us and often say “no” all the more because someone is trying to not allow us to have a choice or a say at all. (I see it my own scheduling - ask me if I will see that extra patient even though if overbooks me and I’ll do it without much grousing - and I always say yes - book it without asking me first and I am very unhappy - we need at least the illusion of control.) If I can guide the decisions to being ones that are minimally problematic (if you want hold off on the polio shot for a few months, wait on the chicken pox, wait on HepB if you must, I don’t really care much about the HepA, in America Rotavirus won’t kill you, but get in the DTaP, the Hib, the Prevnar and the MMR on time. Those I will jump up and down about.) then I have done some good for all involved. They know I think it is silly.
I definitely agree that your prof should have taken a more forceful stance against the spread of such ignorance. I thought the point of college was to educate people, not to coddle them so their widdle feelings don’t get hurt.
Part of the reason this bullshit has spread as far as it has is because nobody wants to be “the meanie” who corrects some hysterical mom who is convinced that her kid’s autism is because of evil vaccines.
Most anti-vaccination people I know are more along the lines of hippies or “all natural” enthusiasts. Here’s an article about one hippie-ish town in Oregon where the anti-vaccination view is popular: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-09-anti-vaccine_N.htm
Remember the name of that town, because I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before we hear about some huge epidemic breaking out there.
Quoting one resident (whose mother is a scientist): “You have this tiny, frog-like baby and they want to shoot her up with things.”
Well, we all know that the germs will respect Frog-Child and not make her sick, if the proper chakras are adhered to. :rolleyes:
Despite the indications in the article that antivax sentiments in this town are an outgrowth of liberal political philosophy, more typically they’re part of the libertarian world view. Ron Paul is a hero to antivaxers because he’s opposed to “forced immunization” (as well as being incredibly ignorant about the need for vaccination and the concept of herd immunity, the more so for being an MD).
By the way, the Huffington Post (source of the Ron Paul column) is an example of how liberals can get swept up into antivax foolishness. The HuffPo frequently runs columns by antivaxers and is a reservoir of credulous woo in general.
You mean a baby cried after getting a shot? It must have been the “toxins” in the vaccine, and not the sharp piece of metal that pierced his skin, right? :rolleyes:
Yes, it’s my understanding that they stop looking like frogs basically after the first month or so in the womb. If they’re still looking froggy when they’re born, that sounds like an issue vaccinations can’t help :dubious:
Anyway, vaccinations - even the general, for-vacc public doesn’t always understand vaccines and how they work very well. How many people say things like “I got the flu shot but still got colds all winter, so it didn’t work”? Or they just don’t understand what the flu feels like, and call any bad cold “the flu”. And these are generally people who DO get their children vaccinated.
I see Jenny McCarthy has been “educating” him. At least, he’s demonstrating the same level of cluelessness and sleaze.
Take the claim that no one without a “vested interest in the profitabilithy of vaccines” has studied all 36 of them in depth. Without dwelling on what Carrey means by “in depth” (for antivaxers, that actually means “jumping to the same conclusions we have”), where exactly did Carrey get that figure of 36 vaccines? The routine childhood vaccination schedule, easily available online, lists only 10. Even if you count multiple shots in a vaccine series (which is not what Carrey’s statement implies), kids’ routine shots don’t add up to 36. This is scaremongering, plain and simple.
And the claim that vaccines are the fastest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry? How does that jibe with the fact that far fewer companies produce vaccines today than in past decades, due to limited profits and the potential for litigation by parents egged on by the likes of Jenny and Jim? (see post #29). Jim is all upset that Dr. Paul Offit or others could profit from developing lifesaving vaccines, but apparently has no trouble with all the profitable quackery that feeds off parents who buy into the Generation Rescue antivax hysteria.
The rest of the column is the typical antivax line, including the expansion of the list of vaccine “toxins” we’re supposed to be afraid of (Jim conveniently omits the fact that thimerosal (mercury), the favorite bogeyman of years past, has been repeatedly cleared as a factor in autism and no longer is a component of most vaccines).
Articles like this one are good for immunizing oneself against Carrey’s sleaze and stupidity.
A friend of mine on Facebook, who recently had a baby, just posted that he refused the initial set of vaccines, and added a link to Jim Carrey’s “eloquent” article. The comments on it were mostly from people who were anti-vaxxers, with a couple of science types trying to post the sane response. They were told they were dismissing parental fears. I don’t even know what to say.
Part of the problem with the anti-vaxxers is that they make a vaccine reaction sound like the end of the world.
Vaccine reactions really aren’t that rare. And you know what? They’re harmless. But you read the anti-vax hysteria on this subject and wind up thinking that a bout of minor crying or a red welt will somehow kill your baby.
My daughter had about twenty minutes or so of high pitched crying at two months after the DTaP shot. I’d read all the anti-vax lit because this topic interests me. So for twenty minutes I was scared as hell that I’d damaged her for life. And I’m as pro-vaccine as they come.
But I was terrified.
On so many levels that’s exactly what’s wrong with Jim Carrey and his ilk. For all that they are always accusing others of fear mongering that’s exactly what they do. That’s basically all they do.
So why aren’t “journalists” like Carrey and Kennedy exposed for the charlatans they are? They write these ridiculous articles , which result in people avoiding safe medical procedures. They don’t have to deal with the human wreckage their misinformation has caused. Maybe the ACLU ought to take them to task…oh, forgot…its a 1st Amendment right to spread falshoods.
It’ll last only until the next major “I thought we had those diseases under control” epidemic comes along and kills thousands of kids. It’s already starting. My oldest nephew’s school issued a warning about whooping cough earlier this year.
