Slashdot Mirror
Pro-Vaccination Efforts May Be Scaring Wary Parents From Shots
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.'"
This recessive gene would be removed from the gene pool in one or two iterations of viral infections.
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.
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.
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.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm always more skeptical of those who insist they know what is right and correct for me - even if they are correct. I know if a government program would start exclaiming how X must be done, even if it is vaccination, I'd start to avoid X just out of natural distrust.
The more effort you put into telling people something is safe and the more visible this effort is, the more people will naturally question just why they're having to make this effort.
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!"
Just another trolling bullshit clickbait summary by Hugh Pickens.
Jenny McCarthy needs to be impoverished and imprisoned for the huge disservice she has done the human race.
To debunk a conspiracy theory, you need to shine light on the misinformation, not on the correct information. The correct information (in most conspiracy theory cases) is out there and easily available--the point of the misinformation is to make you distrust or ignore the correct information when you see it. More correct information doesn't help.
In the case of vaccinations, the way to fix this would be to put up billboards, run commercials, and hand out leaflets letting people know about the scientific fraud committed by certain researchers which led to the anti-vaccine madness. Lots of things people can look up themselves, exposing the misinformation campaign, not providing more pro-vaccination stuff they are already trained to ignore.
Admittedly that may open up a can of worms as those fraudulent researchers sue to get their names off billboards, but that's another issue.
Same thing for anti-evolution too, BTW. One of the common anti-evolution myths is that evolution can't explain how the eye evolved, because there's no survival value in a partial eye. You don't even have to be arguing about evolution--just casually mention that the evolution of the eye is one of the best-understood topics in biology, because it actually evolved independently in several different an interesting ways--and certain people will say "Really?!?" That's the opening for shining the light on misinformation right there. Talk about fossil records and carbon dating and their eyes will glaze over and they'll ignore it.
This sounds all edgy and clever, until you look at who actually dies. Hint: Not just their kids.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
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.)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Doesn't saying that just give you a warm fuzzy about hiring me as a babysitter?
Your premise seems to be that anyone that doesn't agree with you is a moron, what a complete and thoughtful scientific basis for an argument.
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 not all the same but, for me, the more information the better.
People are generally not rational in the classic economic sense. Not even close.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I agree with this. Scientists are becoming so unbelievably political that it gets more and more difficult to trust that they actually have your best interests (or even the truth) at heart.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
That stupid bitch.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
.
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.
... my "people are idiots" theory.
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?
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't see this as materially different from refusing to use a child restraint seat & I don't know anyone except the most extreme libertarians who would argue that should be the parent's choice. you're needlessly putting your child at a quantifiably (at least actuarially) greater risk for severe injury or death.
yes, there are some people who need medical exceptions but that's an _MD's_ call, not a lay parent...
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.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
http://webtasarimsa.com/
Web Tasarm hizmetleri
whistleblowers expose this all day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU
plus vaccines will change/alter your DNA
stay away from vaccines.
And then I read stuff like this:
H1N1 Vaccine Tied to Spike in Narcolepsy: http://www.medpagetoday.com/In...
I'm so tired of having my tin-foil wearing friends tell me that they were right all along.
Why should I risk my child getting disabled for life due to some hidden government agenda/bad science/[insert-favorite-reason-here]? These researchers are never around to share in any poor parent's misery when their children suffer permanent harm.
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Maybe if the health community spent less time pushing flu shots every year, people would begin to respect vaccinations for their useful purpose.
I refuse to get a flu shot - I'd rather my immune system had a natural chance at defending me against it, and it's not likely to kill me. And yet, doctors and nurses try their hardest to convince us that these flu shots are necessary to remain healthy. Every time I walk into a doctors office, it seems like they're asking me if I've had my flu shot yet.
I think there needs to be a clear line between vaccinations that prevent crippling and life-destroying disease, and those that just prevent a standard illness that almost everyone gets and naturally overcomes.
"But just make vaccinations mandatory"
Which ones, who chooses, and who is responsible is the vaccine causes more harm than good? Vaccines are definitely a useful tool in combating disease but they far from perfect. The Swine flue Outbreak of 1976 is a pretty good example of how things can go wrong. Millions were vaccinated against a disease that never spread past a few Army recruits on a base in New Jersey and the cost of over a hundred millions of dollars, resulted in as many as 500 cases of GBS, and at least 25 deaths. Vaccines have of course improved extensively since that incident but they still have drawbacks (lower effectiveness, difficulty predicting seasonal strains, etc) when their positive impacts aren't weight against their failings.
Right up there with "I'm a fucking moron who believes anything said and done by anyone calling themselves a scientist".
WTF? So AGW is just an unscientific cult, foisted on us by evil scientists? Y'all forgot to include the scientists lying about evolution, and aborshuns, and gay marriage and other things the bible says is true. Talk about your ignorant rednecks...
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
Unless you've done the research and experimentation yourself, you don't understand the science either, you just choose to believe it.
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with people not trusting the government.
Everyone else can ignore this issue... unless you live in an area prone to insane viral outbreaks every other week.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You can win with morons. If you don't debunk the whole autism thing, parents won't get their kids vaccinated. If you do debunk it, they decide that they can't trust the scientists and they don't get their kids vaccinated. Does any other developed country have to deal with this kind of idiocy or is it unique to the USA?
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.
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
Yes MightyMartian you are!
Maybe science is political because the religious right made it that way by claiming that dinosaurs are fucking tricks of the devil, that the planet somehow violates the laws of physics, that everything they hate is somehow immoral, but the stuff they don't want to go along with is okay. Maybe they should just get the fucking education and prove them wrong, but they can't because the fucking science is there and it's hard. The FUD that gets spread around about science these days is fucking absurd. The Republican party started a war. They've got guns. We've got nukes, drones, and computers. Let's just fucking start the second civil war they are so keen on so we can beat their asses yet again and get past this fucking absurd idea that Christianity and the state belong together.
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 to have to quit seeing drug ads where they talk about how [minor annoyance] will be all gone and then blip up the bit about liver failure, hair loss, blindness, cancer and death so fast you have to record it and go frame by frame to pick it out (or, just as bad, they try to say those things in a soothing almost bedtime story voice). We'll have to stop the $500 drugs that are no better than the $5 drugs for the vast majority of patients. We have to stop urging people to switch from mostly harmless foods to toxic foods "for their health" based on wild-ass guessing or a need to pump up profits.
Do those things, wash off the big business stench, and there's a chance the public will start believing western doctors again.
We need to stop telling parents that they need to make a "informed decision" and instead drive in the message that getting their children vaccinated is absolutely necessary to protect their life and well being. Posing it as a decision simply provides an opening for anti-vaccine quacks to employ their fear-mongering and to many fear is more powerful than the truth.
[citation needed]
I'm not talking about a citation from some hack with a doctorate in some obscure field (dime a dozen), but rather, a published and peer-reviewed article to support your assertion.
There's a big difference between scientist publishing misinformation with a political agenda, and a scientist publishing information that is at odds with *your* political agenda.
Non-lethality? Only for the grossly misinformed. Practically all of the diseases for which there are vaccines can be lethal to people especially for the very young, the very old, people with weakened immune systems. A healthy person might be able to fight off rubella with little problem but the vast majority of deaths of rubella are young children and fetuses. Pregnant women are the most sensitive group as a number of defects can occur including blindness and congential heart defects.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You can't cure stupid... ...sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.
'Corrections of misperceptions about controversial issues like vaccines may be counterproductive in some populations...'
You mean like in backwards, superstitious, inbred, possibly downright stupid populations???
You seem to be describing "Herd Immunity", note that it often requires an improbably high percentage of people be vaccinated (80-95%) and studies on the subject often glaze over the possible contributors to disease spread in the vaccinated population (going to work while infectious instead of staying home).
They showed the the science wasn't even conclusive. The two affected countries reported a small spike and two others with the same risk factors reported absolutely nothing.
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.
Just tell them you can talk with blood cells and they say they need those shots.
In a consumerist society, we (eventually) all learn that parties will generally say anything to get us to act as they wish - buy this product, donate cash for this cause, vote for this person etc. So most people's gut reaction will (eventually) develop to the point of applying skepticism first and asking questions later.
Inundated with a daily barrage of lies from these parties, is it really surprising when people turn away? We have been trained to do so. Yes, in this particular case it may be science, but 99% of what we are told in general are just lies so we are just reacting using auto-pilot.
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 the 'truth' which is a) this is a real thing (just like they said!) and b) its safe (just like they said you would say!) - they have already been innoculated (is that a pun here?) against the truth.
Of course you think its safe, you were looking at all those fake studies done by researchers in the pocket of big pharma/big agriculture etc.
Certainly there are coverups and conspiracies and things people in power don't want us to know about, but most of those things can be much more complicated and messy.... people like a nice simple story...one they can remember and repeat.
OTOH the answer here is nothing really new. There were some surveys that asked people about vaccination programs. What they did was take the same information, same number of lives saved, same number of deaths etc, and wrote them up in two different ways: one which emphasized the decision based on lives saved, and another which emphasized the decision based on lives lost.
What was the outcome? Quite simply, people were more moved to support the vaccination program based on figures which put it in terms of avoiding losses than when put in terms of lives saved.
This seems like a very similar case. Talk all you want about benefits and safety on their own; you get people's attention by focus on losses. In the end, I think that is why the anti-vaccination stories tend to be more powerful: They focus on (imaginary) losses and avoiding those losses.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I asked my doctor if there was something that could take care of my restless leg syndrome that wasn't a pill where the symptoms were worse than the cure...
she recommended trying Tonic Water... the quinine in it is a muscle relaxant.
It works and I don't have to worry about all the bad side effects.
The pharmaceutical industries job is to push the new pill... it was nice to see my doctor wasn't tied to their apron strings.
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?"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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 towards them and choosing to place all blame on the government, right or wrong.
Or you could go exercise.
Unless you've done the research and experimentation yourself, you don't understand the science either, you just choose to believe it.
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with people not trusting the government.
That's not terribly accurate. I can understand many things without experimentation.What you have not done, unless you do the expriment, is verify the veracity of the experiment.
Indeed: experimentation doesn't neccessairily lead to understanding. Experiments are designed to falsify (or, by failing to falsify, re-enforce) models. They actually have little to do with understanding the model itself. One can add the resutls of an experiment to the fact pool used to help create models, but that's actually anticillary in many cases.
The answer is to give them both the benefits *AND* the dangers. Full disclosure. Then let them make up their own minds.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It sounds like your issue is with marketing. Not science.
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Congress?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Tell everyone it is the will of God and the syringe contains DNA from Jesus, excavated from the Holy Grail, recently located just inside an annexed Palestinian territory. Have vaccinations take place in church alongside baptisms. Once you inextricably link vaccination and God's will, there will be zero resistance. Who are you to oppose God?
So just to make sure we understand your position then, there are idiots who call you on the phone, idiots who don't want needles, and idiots who value their personal autonomy. But the biggest idiots are the idiot who conduct "science" but don't know enough about research. And finally, slashdot sucks.
However you indirectly referred to a couple of other types of idiots without really commenting on them at all, specifically the phone survey troll and the idiots who make vague criticisms about slashdot while neither participating in the site in any meaningful way, nor leaving quietly (or at all).
This is the correct response. Educate and let each live or die according to his own conscience.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Maybe people too stupid to understand science would slowly weed themselves out of society by these types of actions.
Ok .. that was intended to be sarcastic. But part of me really wishes it were true.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
just lock up anti-vaccine people for practicing medicine without a license.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Give the survey. If they act like idiots, euthanize the parents & vaccinate the kids.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
"Fordham University Mumps Outbreak Affects Vaccinated Students; School Bans Unvaccinated"
http://www.omsj.org/blogs/fordham-university-mumps-outbreak-affects-vaccinated-students-school-bans-unvaccinated
"One of New York’s lesser-known institutions of higher learning is making headlines after 13 confirmed cases, and counting, of mumps emerged on two of its campuses, prompting school officials to impetuously ban all unvaccinated students from attending classes. But these same reports clearly indicate that all affected students had already been vaccinated for mumps, proving once again the utter uselessness of vaccines and the imbecilic tendencies of organizations chained to the vaccine status quo."
And I raise you this:
http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html
Jenner was a fraudster. How I laugh at the Slashdot crowd, you believe anything the TV tells you.
EVERYBODY had mumps, measles, etc. when I was a child, forty years ago - EVERY child had had them. NOBODY died. NOBODY was terrified of their children getting them. How come? Please explain?
And unfortunately for you pro-vaccination cretins, we have PROOF of this, in hundreds of television programmes made during that era.
Vaccination in TV programmes: ... ...
'The masters or sitcom' by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, p161:
BILL: Go round kissing all the babies. That'll get the votes.
ANDREE: How is he doctor?
KENNETH: Oh, it's nothing to worry about, just a slight case of measles. Plenty of rest, he'll be all right in a week or two.
TONY: (Disgusted) Measles. Whose bright idea was it to go round kissing all the babies?
BILL: Well, I'm sorry, Tub.
TONY: 'Don't forget the one with the freckles,' he says. Aaah... If I get half as many votes as I've got spots, I'll sweep the country.
Doctor at Large, Series 1 Ep. 25, 2:14 Dr. Upton is taken ill and says "Feels like mumps. I had mumps. I had it when I was eight."
Catweazle, series 1, final part, first two minutes, Mr.Bennett's father mentions that he had chickenpox at 9.
Steptoe and Son Christmas Special - Chickenpox, last five minutes.
Robin's Nest, Series 2, Episode 7, 10:10, Robin's brother's got mumps.
Robin's Nest, Series 3, Episode 4, 18:20 - Mr Nicholls hadn't had mumps.
The Famous Five - Five Go Adventuring Again, 2:00 - George says "And what with that, and my being ill, he thought it would be a good idea if we all have lessons", Anne says "Your spots have all gone", George replies "I know, I was officially de-measled this morning".
Man About the House - Series 1, Episode 3 - After the Monopoly game, Chrissie says "I haven't had so much fun since I had the mumps".
"Larry Grayson on Pebble Mill 1992" in Mpegs/Comedy, 4:39, said he had measles twice.
'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' directed by Selznick. 10:33,
Tom: Where have you been such a long time. I haven't seen you since we got engaged.
Girl: I had the chickenpox.
Tom: You haven't got it now, have you?
Girl: No, silly, think my ma would let me out if I wasn't all cured?
How come nobody was throwing a fit about these 'deadly' viruses forty years ago?
Some vaccines are very beneficial. Smallpox, polio, tetanus, and rabies come to mind. But some, especially some of the newer ones, are very questionable.
The profit motive of companies has led them to suppress any bad effects in order to increase profits. This is true across all industries including pharmaceuticals and vaccines. A lot of research tends to "prove" whatever the people handing out the money want it to prove. Even researchers at universities aren't immune when large grants are on the line.
For instance, up until a few years ago the general recommendation was to *not* give flu shots to pregnant women and infants under 6 months. The inserts that came with the vaccine specifically stated as much. It is known that giving flu shots to pregnant women increases the likelihood of the child developing schizophrenia. As far as I know the causal mechanism is not understood, but the level of increased risk is understood. Giving pregnant women certain vaccines is also known to significantly increase the risk of spontaneous abortion of the fetus. Yet despite these known problems the CDC position is that pregnant women should be given the shots without informing the women of the risks. The HPV vaccine has killed a number of young girls, has sterilized quite a few more, and has caused adverse reactions of various levels in more than 10,000 cases ranging from temporary pain and swelling all the way to frequent serious seizures. Gillian-Barr and narcolepsy? Sometimes flu shots can cause either of them. Fear mongering? No, I call it informed consent. For quite a few diseases the risks of long term consequences from the disease far outweigh the risks from the vaccines. But until the problems can be discussed openly they won't be fixed.
All vaccines contain many ingredients. One of those ingredients are the proteins that are engineered to incite an immune response. All of the other ingredients are presumed to be either harmless or inert without any actual proof that this is true, and substantial evidence in at least some cases that it is not true. The polio vaccine given in the 1960's was contaminated with the Simian A virus which is now known to cause cancer in humans. The adjuvant (EDT?) that was added to a few vaccines to stretch the supplies was expected to be fine because the chemical is already in the human body and yet its use was associated with substantial increase in problems from the vaccines. Many if not most vaccines used in the U.S. are now manufactured in China. Given the history of adulterated products coming out of China you would be a fool to blindly trust that the vaccines do not have any contaminants, and our government is not doing any testing to verify the situation.
So, what you're saying is that instead of correcting the morons, we should just neuter them?
Use reverse psychology: tell people "Obama, the deviant puppy-eating communist, does not want your kid to get vaccinated."
Table-ized A.I.
People aren't shy of vaccines because some idiot said they caused autism 10 years ago. They're shy/scared of them because vaccines are created by companies who have yet to convince an intelligent public that they have the public's best interest at heart instead of their wallet.
Do companies make money from vaccines? Yes. However, they only make their money once per person. I think that supplying treatment to a chronic condition (like some of the side effects of the diseases of the vaccines) would make a lot more money.
There are doctors out there who tell every parent who comes in "get your vaccinations" and yet they won't vaccinate their child because there are risks.
Tin foil hat thinking at its finest. So you're saying that the vast majority of doctors who advocate for vaccines would not use it on their children. Please cite some evidence for this claim.
I guess what I'm saying is that people have valid fears. There are real risks with any medication. Corps do not care if they make children sick. Doctors are salesmen for corps. THESE are the issues. Not autism.
Doctors have always said that every medication comes with risks and side effects. For vaccines, there is a risk but the chances of those risks are far less than the disease itself. In cases of problems with the vaccines, there is a special court for these cases.
If you aren't a doctor, a scientist studying it or the parent of a child, you have no right to speak about things you know nothing about. (wait I guess that's the best description of slashdot ever)
Then by your admission, you should probably not speak again.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I think they were mostly apathetic or had never heard of issues with vaccines before. So when told that there was a controversy suddenly they had to stop and think about the issue. Some may have gone from thinking vaccines were completely safe in all respects into now having some doubts. Because scientists aren't lying here they're never going to say 100% safe with no side effects, which is probably what the average parent is assuming.
"It's much less dangerous than crossing the road" causes people to ask "wait, crossing roads is dangerous??"
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.
You mean two political parties.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The way it was worded, the participants were 70% likely, not 70% of the participants were likely. How you determine that someone is 70% or 45% likely to do something, I don't know... maybe through various questions that led them to say yes or no based on particular circumstances.
1.) People trust idiots they know over scientists they don't know.
2.) People don't respond well to being informed they are wrong.
" 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...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If the government is telling me something, I'm going to get suspicious as to why they are trying to convey this message to me. Very rarely do authority figures tell you something that is truly meant to benefit you rather than them. In this case it is correct information, but in general if the government wants me to do something, it is for their own benefit and not generally for my benefit. Things that would truly benefit me are usually things that others, especially in authority, are indifferent to.
idk, but my second son got the MMR and it messed him up. the next day he had a seizure and wound up in the hospital surronded by confused doctors and nurses who wanted to fly him somewhere else. he came to after hours and had a rough couple of days. was barely two and seemed a different kid after that. diagnosed autistic at four. i have 6'2" 200 lb non-verbal autistic 19 year old son and a divorce to show for it. my third son we never gave him the MMR. He's NT. (nuero typical) . The autistic one is the better one of the bunch as it turns out, just sayin .. .
Really? What's one thing that SuperKendall said wrong? The part where he pointed out that pla's assessment of the study was wrong? Where he said that scientists often are mouthpieces for [insert political agenda] that makes people not like them? Or the part where he says that it would be good for society if scientists were considered to have some measure of integrity? Did he not post enough about how much you like to play with sock puppets? Is that it?
Try watching your kid die of a disease that we had mostly wiped out half a century ago. Polio, Measles and Whooping Cough are making a comeback! We just need to find one isolated tribe that never got rid of Smallpox and it'll be as if the last century and a half of scientific achievement never happened!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Perhaps they'll change their mind once their precious comes down with Polio or MMR, or some other preventable. Then when Timmy asks Mommy why did you do this to me if the child lives, she can say, well, I'm a dumb fuck, but I wuv u. At least she'll get the spend the rest of her life taking care of her handicapped child. How soon one forgets that early humans used to have a life expectancy of early 20s. I guess that's "natural" and that's what they want for their child. Go for it.
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.
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?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And getting the flu shot doesn't fix any of that. All they're doing is trying to guess what strain will be most prevalent. Like most things they usually get it wrong and people get sick anyway. You must work in the medical industry.
Tonic water works best when laced with gin. Add a wedge of lime to make it a refreshing bit of medicine.
Keep your doctor. Most doctors would've grabbed a Scrabble tile bag, randomly selected 7 tiles, then wrote that combination on a prescription pad. Seriously, "Xeljanz"? Get that sucker on a triple word score for an instant win. (XELJANZ = 8+1+1+8+1+1+10 = 30, 30 * 3 = 90, ignoring crossing words.)
As this clearly shows. Sad, but true.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
i dont disagree with the vacinne. i think the premise is that they put mercury and some other crappy chemical preservative in them cause it was cheap for the drug companies. they stopped doing that 10 years ago i've heard . too late for me.. the deal is they cant admit to it because of the huge law suits..
Was your friend's sibling vaccinated?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
yeah, how bout it... tough crowd.
Oh gee, I wonder who this anonymous commenter might be??
weinersmith
No vaccination? No public school.
Work with Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other youth organizations and have them adopt vaccination policies as well. So that unvaccinated children are not interacting in large groups.
Then on top of this when someone's baby goes blind from rubella or dies from measles, open a class action lawsuit against every parent in that county that failed to get their child vaccinated.
Folks, we need to be hard asses about vaccinations. We need serious social and financial consequences to people who fail to participate. If you want to live in a society with high infant mortality, then find some poor horrible place to live far away from me.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If you're vaccinated, it's not going to affect you.
Unfortunately vaccination, like hormonal birth control, (a) does not always take and (b) wears off.
Thus the importance of vaccinating enough members of society to ensure that the few people for whom the vaccination did not work are unlikely to ever be exposed to somebody else who has the disease.
That "wearing off" part is one of the big reasons the US has reported a resurgence in whooping cough: only recently did the FDA approve a booster shot for adults. In adults whooping cough often seems like no more than a cold/flu so the incidence of whooping cough likely hasn't increased, we're just improving the recognition rate because more infected adults means more likelihood of infecting unvaccinated children.
The main reason most people choose not to believe in science is the notion that when they die, they are completely dead. Many people feel that it's better to believe that you will be floating on a cloud or being seduced by dozens of virgins, or creating your own universe as a Celestial god, than to choose to live morally for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. Belief in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause are easily given up as one grows up. Ancient and strict religious beliefs are quite another thing, as accepting science generally challenges ones faith in God and life after death.
The scientists aren't becoming political, rather they are finally speaking up against the anti-intellectuals that have been so publicly attacking them in attempts to bolster their own ignorant voter base via fearmongering. The scientists speaking out is merely a defense against that both for themselves, and also for the ignorant they are having to speak against.
Fuck politics has been fucking with science for as long as science has been around.
Its always been that way.
Goatfuckers don't want their kids vaccinated, don't allow them in public schools and don't allow organizations that don't require vaccination to use school facilities: scouts, soccer, etc...
Actually, a better way would be to focus on reducing the bad reactions to vaccines, both allergic reactions and 'hot lot' batches. Years ago, when I worked at a hospital and took care of a boy who'd gotten an MMR and promptly come down with all three. He was one miserable kid. That shot didn't protect him from MMR. It gave him MMR. Eight specialists confirmed that diagnosis.
Careful simply don't buy the public health obsession with statistics. Their child, they reasonably assume, isn't a statistic. Their child is better fed, and thus more resistant. Their child doesn't get exposed to unhealthy conditions, particularly sick children, because they are careful. And if their child gets sick, they'll seek high-quality medical help quickly. And they're probably right. A disproportionate number of the bad outcomes with childhood infections probably do happen to impoverished, single-parent households.
That means that public health comparisons of the relative risks miss the point. The gap is not between a statistical child who gets a shot and has complications and a statistical child who gets a disease. It's between each individual child's risks for one or the other. That can be quite different, particularly in families where there's a history of reactions to shots.
There's an additional, psychological factor--the feeling or potential feeling of guilt. A mother isn't going to feel as guilty if her child caught measles from someone at school as she is a terrible reaction from a shot when she took that child to the doctor and held him while the shot was given.
The solution is a simple one. Quit be satisfied with vaccines that are merely statistically better than the disease but still carry significant risks. Work on making them better and better. Make them so good that no child (not just that statistical child) is at a greater risk from the vaccine than from the disease. Get rid of those bad reactions. Quickly detect and purge the system of those hot lots. And the stonewalling and claiming, "it's so because we say so and we are scientists."
When I worked in a hospital and had to persuade patients to do something they might not like, I did not blame resistance on them. I blamed it on myself. I should be more persuasive. I should find a better way. And I had very, very few problems with resistance because I didn't try to scare, bully, or demand. They went along because they believed I cared and knew what I was doing.
Actually he has a point with respect to the fact that the name of science has been misused by people trying to sell us stuff. Sadly, this will always be true because con men simply identify whatever large numbers of people trust, then exploit that reputation until it is worthless.
That said, I do believe that a way to save face is probably a good idea, though I'm not sure about the 'mandatory' part. There are valid medical reasons why some people cannot be vaccinated, though they have absolutely nothing to do with the autism nonsense and similar myths.
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.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
If we want to persuade people to get vaccinated educate them about what the disease the vaccine protects against will do to them. The choice is not whether or not they want to risk the vaccine the choice is whether they want to risk the disease or the vaccine. It's a lot easier to judge a relative risk like that than some nebulous promises that the vaccine is pretty safe.
We need terraforming and interstellar travel technology as soon as possible. This way the fundies can eventually get their own separate planets.
According to the article, the people were given information that basically said. "You can't prove autism is from vaccinations" and the rest was scare tactics. Photos of kids suffering from the afflictions the vaccines purport to prevent.
How is this any different than the religious argument?
You can't prove God doesn't exist. This is what happens in hell.
My body belongs to me. You shouldn't worry if I don't get vaccinated if you have been vaccinated... Right? You shouldn't worry if my child hasn't been vaccinated if your child has been vaccinated... Right?
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
On one hand I kinda get your point. Scientist are just people, and people being people can be influenced by a whole host of bias. On the other hand, it's frigging science, finding out that what you thought was right is not, is part of science. On the other hand, are scientists the one's leading people down false paths? Certainly not all the time no, it is often other people (politicians for example) who just want a straight yes or no answer without understanding the science so they can try to scare people into doing what they want. Education is the solution for the population, which is the last thing the politicians want.
I can't tell if this is a troll post or not, because every statement you make is the same common rhetoric and bullshit and none of it is true.
First paragraph: Cite an example, and keep in mind that "flu shots" are not vaccines - that's why they're not called vaccines.
Second paragraph: Companies do not profit from vaccines. There are no patents or continuing therapy associated with vaccines, and without these, there is very little profit to be made and no corporate incentive. Vaccine development comes from tax dollars.
Third paragraph: No. Anyone who is trained as a doctor would not put their children at risk like that. This statement reminds me of "I have lots of gay friends" from homophobes.
Forth paragraph: Makes no sense, because again, doctors can't be salesmen for vaccines because there is no profit to be made with vaccines. Vaccines are preventative medicine, and for-profit medical treatments are only interested in treating symptoms and continuing therapy, because that's where the money is.
Fifth paragraph: Why are you speaking then?
Measles killed children. Maybe most of them got it, but it still killed and left scars and blindness - about 3 in every 1000 int the USA, and about 25% in less developed countries. The risks associated with measles vaccines don't even come close to that.
I believe so. The whooping cough vaccine is a temporary thing; it only protects you for maybe 20-30 years. But as long as people give it to kids, adult immune systems are usually resilient enough that it had just about completely died out, so it didn't matter. But now, thanks to the anti-vax people, it's common enough that adults get it, and spend months in agony.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Most people on here are posting angry, righteous pro-vaccination statements and getting upvoted for it. But most of you have never looked into it; because this side of the argument has become associated with "science" you assume it's right. But you're acting like sheep just as much as someone who listens to a celebrity who markets the other side.
If you are going to make strong statements, you should actually spend some time researching what you are talking about - and I mean looking at both sides, past the marketing. It's not as simple as you might think.
For anyone that has done even a modest amount of research into immunization, you'd know that the field is not very well-understood, and that there's far more to the correlation/causation stories than the scientists give them credit for (at least in anything I've ever read). Just because Jenny McCarthy says it's bad, or Penn & Teller say it's good, doesn't mean anything. People on here claim to laugh at the ignorance of "fucking morons who fear and don't understand science", when in fact you're equally guilty of not understanding it.
For immunizations like MMR, I tend to think they should be given once children are a bit older, and have had a few years for their natural immune systems to develop. For others like chicken pox, or influenza, I don't think they should be taken at all (risks far outweigh the reward).
You can't paint all immunizations with the same brush - and if you do, you're probably a marketing victim (if you have an iphone, you'll know you are for sure).
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
Unless you've done the research and experimentation yourself, you don't understand the science either, you just choose to believe it.
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with people not trusting the government.
Perhaps you should do some research on yourself to determine the toxicity levels of Polonium rather than trust other people's and government research?
The best response to false beliefs is not necessarily providing correct information.'
Then what is it? Better PR? Louder shouting?
We can't stay here forever; this planet is dying. Our race really is a bunch of damned monkeys sometimes. If we can't get past this bullshit dogmatism we're doomed, people. If we can't solve this nonsense we'll die on this mudhole and never reach the stars.
Paul "Profit" Offit, Gardisil deaths, Squalene adjuvant coverup, Vioxx
Gulf War Syndrome, Gardisil, Vioxx, Etc....
There are no real safety studies so there should be no legislated protection for the Vaccine companies or the doctors.
trusted Something Something
Paul "Profit" Offit, Gardisil deaths, Squalene adjuvant coverup, Vioxx
The idea that you need a flu shot everytime a politician signs a deal with a major pharma company could be very detrimental to your health. Primarily because everytime you get a flu shot, you introduce inflamation into the artery system of your body because the immune system gets jacked up from the shot.
If you do this every year for the rest of your life....well, you probably will get heart disease.
The only time you should get flu shots is when you see them piling up bodies from the plague, and you want to stay alive.
Then yes, I would get a flu shot.
Also, jacking the immune system up on developing children every year for seasonal shots is also probably a very bad idea, for obvious reasons I think.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
http://childhealthsafety.wordp...
pick up yer feet. The crap is getting awfully deep!
as in Paul "Profit" Offit
http://childhealthsafety.wordp...
No way anyone in their right minds should trust an industry as corrupt as Pig Pharma
I was in the military and a military brat. I was forced to receive all kinds of vaccinations over the last 40 years. I have no known allergies, but the flu vaccine straight up makes me ill. I've done both the "dead virus" injection on several occasions and the live virus inhaled a couple of times. The "dead virus" knocks me flat on my ass for 3 days, every single time. I've only had the actual flu about 3 times in my life. As a child (8) it was bad (vomit, diarrhea, fever, the works). A couple of more times as an adult were mild. I've tried to reason with people that catching the actual flu is both rare and FAR milder for me than the "dead vaccine". No luck. These vaccine cultists demand that everyone get it, no matter how much damage it does. I had the chicken pox as a child , as did my 3 siblings, as have all of my children. Why should the state demand that these children, who have clear documentation showing that they HAD the chicken pox, be put needlessly at risk with injections that the don't need. You want unreasonable? Silver bullet believing vaccine cultists. You know why the reason that most people don't believe your vaccine messaging? Because they can see through the irrational propaganda presented. My family received MMR, polio, and several other vaccines that make good sense. It is the irrational insistence that immunization must be comprehensive and forced, regardless of circumstances, that does more harm than good. Absolutism is just foolish and counterproductive.
If more doctors kept the industry honest that way, healthcare might not be such a disaster.
"group immunity remains a major factor in the effectiveness of vaccination." [edited for clarity]
Thanks for saying that. I didn't see anyone else making that point.
The ability of a disease to spread depends on the availability of hosts. Vaccinated people aren't hosts. If a large percentage of people have immunity, someone who is not immune is unlikely to get a disease. But vaccination depends on a large percentage being vaccinated, so everyone who isn't vaccinated is weakening group immunity.
Causes more stupid.
So, why isn't it your friend's sibling's fault for failing to get a booster vaccination?
I have and will most likely continue to vaccinate my children because I prefer the tradeoff of that risk over the other but it's everyone's choice. The primary responsibility of the parent is to the well being of the child, not to the society. I spend a lot of resources on my own offspring and not on the offspring of everyone else. It's in my and my offspring's best interest for me to do that even if it's not necessarily in society's.
Herd immunity is less important to me than keeping my kids from being crippled by polio.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Herd Immunity is a myth. The human race has not been a "Herd" for thousands of years. Statistically speaking a large majority of people stand a better chance of a bad side affect then sickness from not getting vaccinated.
Suppose someone told you, "You know Mr. XYZ next door? He's not a child molester. Some people say he's a child molester, but he's not." Wouldn't you start keeping your kids away from Mr. XYZ?
Suppose someone told you, "This vaccine doesn't create autism. Some people say it caused autism in their kids, but it really doesn't." Wouldn't that make you a little nervous about the vaccine?
I don't know how the public health messages are worded, but I would recommend that they avoid talking about autism. I would recommend that the messages concentrate on the need and the benefit of the vaccine. If the messages have to mention bad side effects of the vaccine, the messages should just say briefly, "The only bad side effects can can occur, and that have occurred from the vaccine, are ".
Vaccines are now mandatory, because screw your selfish ignorance putting everyone else at risk.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
good post. sad that rabid animal-machines downmod it and upmod name calling responses. i expect slashdot and other previously worthwhile forums will be dead soon, and the psuedopeople increasingly infesting it will eventually die off from lack of anyone to hear their opinions.
thanks for still posting good stuff though.
some vaccines are good, some are unnecessary and thus bad. dont get the flu vaccine. bring on the hate, i think you religious nuts are hilarious and will probably die falling off of your soapboxes before i or anyone else i know dies from flu =-)
immune systems exist for a reason, and so do our thinking skills.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/d...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
"Does CDC think that influenza causes most P&I deaths?
No, only a small proportion of deaths in either of these two categories are estimated to be influenza-related. CDC estimated that only 8.5% of all pneumonia and influenza deaths and only 2.1% of all respiratory and circulatory deaths were influenza-related."
The editor has data to reach its conclusion , the "fucking moron" (a term I disagree with BTW) on the other hand trusted an authority under the form of a "model" which did not have any medicine training and a corrupt doctor which not only did unethical test, but also sold coincidentally an alternative product and he has long been discredited. Those people *decided* to trust people which were not expert over the quantity of expert. To give a "redneck" equivalent, it would be like trusting some random internet "hindu" poster over issues of christian faith rather than ask their local parish.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That is because you are confusing scientists with policy-makers and spokespeople trying to interpret science. We are quite far removed from politics and care deeply about the subjects we spend all of our professional lives on. It's sad bordering on insulting that you think that we don't care about the truth and are somehow connected to politics. It's true that we don't care about your best interests, that has nothing to do with science.
Herd immunity is less important to me than keeping my kids from being crippled by polio.
Herd immunity is what keeps your kids from being crippled by polio.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. Learn how they work, at least for your children's sake.
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
... is virtually meaningless. You can cite all the statistical blah-blah you want but take a look at margins of error. Yes, it is interesting that in this sample they observed what they observed. Extrapolating from there however is a bit misguided or disengenuous.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
And yet you advocate making it mandatory. I live in a country where certain vaccines are mandatory, and a few months ago there was a case where the mother didn't want her child vaccinated because she (the mother) was allergic to the vaccine, and there was a high probability the child would also be allergic.
The child was vaccinated against the mothers wish. The child had an allergic reaction, and came close to dying. The thing is, though... The vaccine in question required three vaccinations to be effective. After the child almost died of the first one, they were informed that the child would still have to have the other two vaccinations.
Only after the parents took the hospital to court, did they get out of it. Not because the court agreed with the parents, but because the court accepted to postpone the second and third vaccination until after the case, and that would be after the latest date the vaccinations had to be done to be effective.
That's the kind of thing you are advocating.
So, you're saying that vaccinations are as dangerous as flying, and we shouldn't allow the doctor near the kds until he has gone through a TSA checkpoint, where any fluids and pointy objects he is carrying will be confiscated.
Got it.
There have been many psychological studies that establish that if people hear or read something about topics X and Y, regardless of where they got the information, whether it was told to them or whether they sought out the information themselves, they only remember that there is a link between X and Y.
There are a few people (mostly nerds) who remember the kind of link, but most people don't. ‘X causes Y’, ‘X prevents Y’, ‘X doesn't cause Y’, ‘X is unrelated to Y’, ‘X correlates with Y’ all get remembered as ‘X is linked to Y’. The negative is completely lost.
This has been known for years now and you'd think people would take this into account when designing public information campaigns (or when deciding whether to hold one at all).
You think jenny juggs for brains who cured her child of autism through magic is playing you straight?
I always wonder if the anti-vaccine crowd is ever worried about immigrants illegal or otherwise spreading desease by mistake or on purpose... just saying.
Mercury was removed from vaccines I want to say 10 years ago, not because it actually caused any health issues but because the overwhelming pressure from stupid people. Yet people still tout the mercury excuse even though it's not even in play anymore.
It's not a religion, calling it that to undermind science is like calling religion intelligent design. Both are lies that stupid people like to believe.
If your choices put society in danger, especially my family, then by all means gtfo. Go start your own society on an island somewhere, we don't want your kind.
You are missing my point.
I immunized my children because it was the best way to protect them. There may be the added benefit that they will be less likely to infect your immune compromised granny with some communicable disease but that was and is not my primary motivation.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
My generation had multiple shots starting from age 2-18 and I'm still getting shots to this day, and none of them harmed me in anyway it's just the side effects but that's normal. Get over it people.
There have been a lot of reasons to be suspicious of medical authorities. They are willing to subject others to the treatments but not their own family!
From the Simpsonwood Conference:
Dr. Johnson, pg. 198: "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available. I do not believe the diagnoses justifies compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point. I deal with causality, it seems pretty clear to me that the data are not sufficient one way or the other. My gut feeling? It worries me enough. Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out a eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines."
Dr. Weil, pg. 207 - the man representing the American Academy of Pediatrics "The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant. The positive relationships are those that one might expect from the Faroe Islands studies. They are also related to those data we do have on experimental animal data and similar to the neurodevelopmental tox data on other substances, so that I think you can't accept that this is out of the ordinary. It isn't out of the ordinary."
http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm
Any so many more. And you wonder why nobody trusts them?
The exact flip side of that is that herd immunity is the primary reason we care whether you vaccinate your kids.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
The price is too low. If it was $10,000/shot, nobody would be suspicious. Everyone would think of vaccinated kids as the lucky ones.
Just tell them it helps prevent acne. Parents and kids will be falling over themselves to get vaccinated. Problem solved!
Similarly, we could deal with speeding and drunk driving by presenting information and letting people make up their own minds. That doesn't seem to be a popular option.
I'd be all in favor of education and no coercion if it just affected idiots who are against vaccination. It affects lots of people, though. In crowded environments, we need herd immunity from the nastier diseases.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So after showing and discussing horror stories, with photographs no less, the person was less interested in the subject of your discussion? Big surprise. Welcome to cognitive dissonance.
No matter what the collateral damage, right?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Shame the stupidity gene that not vaccinating would remove from the gene pool takes useful people with it.
If parents prfer the vacuous to the sensible then they should be isolated until they can't kill sensible people with their stupidity.
Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
I have a son with autism and I saw how the vaccinations effected it, I was there. It was a large factor - probably not the only factor (but maybe it was no one really knows).
What we do know is that immediately (sorry wasn't a coincidence, it was IMMEDIATE, as in next day) before the 2nd and 3rd group of shots he was one way, and immediately after he was another (after the 3rd batch he didn't utter a word for 5 months - one day he had a vocabulary and a willingness to speak, next 5 months not a word).
At the time we knew nothing of autism, and it wasn't until after when I went back and looked at the home videos and correlated the dates of the vaccinations with the dates these 2 regressions happened that I put it together. By then I had read about all the circumstantial evidence of others experiencing the same thing.
Is it proof? No - but it sure is a lot of smoke.
From what I have managed to research and understand some people have various types of intolerances to the heavy metals and preservatives they put in these mass produced vaccines, as well as are predisposed to environmental factors where autism can develop with some kind of catalyst such as too many vaccinations over too short of a time period at too young of an age. When were kids we had far less vaccinations and at an older age.
In my opinion, and many other people's opinion, the debate is not YES or NO to vaccinations - we need vaccinations obviously - it is the safety and quality of the vaccinations - there is a lot of money to be made and far to many are given over too short a time period - and probably the largest factor is the preservatives and how cheaply they are made. They could make them more costly and make them safer, obviously with less of a shelf life, if these massive corporations were forces to do so in the name of public health.
But big money spreads disinformation, depicting anyone who questions vaccines as being ANTI vaccine, which triggers emotionally charged resistance and a willingness to shut said people up by the general public who really know nothing about it. And of course they continuously bring up Wakefield, as if one crooked individual represents anyone and everyone who questions the safety of vaccines.
I can't describe how annoying this all is - meanwhile kids continue to develop autism at an increasing rate (even when you factor in the increasing rate of awareness and diagnosis).
..and who don't exercise. And who don't eat large quantities of fruits, vegetables, and beans (and some nuts, seeds, and whole grains). And don't get enough vitamin D or iodine. And who don't breastfeed infants for at least two years if a mother (WHO recommendation). And who are frequently stressed. And who don't get enough sleep. And who don't work at home. And who don't homeschool their children (to avoid illness spread via compulsory schools). And who don't buy as much as possible online to avoid stores. And who smoke. And who are promiscuous. And who don't buy all organic food and organic cotton bedsheets (just in case). And who bring other stuff with toxins into the house (like formaldehyde off-gassing composite wood products). Because all these things either reduce your immune system or increase your risk of getting sick.
So, are you in prison for poor health choices yet? Following your plan, you can leave when you agree to do all of the above...
A starting point:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Don't be stupid. Taking a topic like this to a sufficiently far away extreme always results in idiocy and serves only to muddy the waters. You're smarter than that, and so am I.
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
There is no documentation showing that death rates among children from these diseases have been improved by vaccinations.
See: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249
You all seem to forget that sanitation within modern societies is extremely high and centuries ahead of some third world countries. In fact, its almost too high given the fact that we are now seeing a rise in super germs that are immune to every form of treatment.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/super-gonorrhea-sweeping-globe-health-experts-warn-article-1.1090959
If you're not vaccinated because you can't afford to be, then get Obamacare quickly.
I wish I could. But it appears my current income is greater than my red state's Medicaid threshold but less than the federal poverty threshold. Therefore I don't qualify for a subsidy, and I'll have to pay a substantial chunk of my income for health insurance. Or what did I, and others in my position, miss?
What part of the United States Constitution (or even the Constitution of one of the 50 States) authorizes the Government to compel vaccination?
Article I section 8 grants Congress several enumerated powers, one of which is power "to regulate commerce [...] among the several states." Someone who carries a contagious disease across state lines is interfering with commerce, especially if this disease is one that impairs driving enough to cause a collision on a post road.
I imagine that a lot of Christians believe that mandatory RFID in human beings represents the mark of the Beast, and a "free exercise" argument to justify exemption would have a good chance in court. Is the RFID tag's response 666 bits long too?
Let me try to explain it to a child: A needle stick hurts for one minute. Getting sick hurts for days. When you fall on the playground, it hurts for a minute, but then your boo-boo goes away. The doctor is going to do something that hurts for a minute, and it goes away the same way. Do you want it to hurt for one minute and then get back to the playground/video games/whatever, or do you want to be stuck in bed for days?
Want to take a good look, and tell me what the collateral damage would be for not having herd immunity? Some of these diseases are really nasty.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So are some of these vaccines. In fact, for some of the weakened-virus instead of killed-virus variety, some of these vaccines *are* the disease they are hoping to prevent.
What are the real risks of vaccines? Incredibly hard to tell when even the CDC uses weasel words like "risk of death is extremely small" instead of giving us a percentage from the study- and the original white papers are always paywalled and copyrighted. You can't calculate risk without knowing actual numbers.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And talk about your ignorant lemming liberals following blindly along believing everything they're told.
We hear this often from the drooling ditto-heads on the right, and yet again, nothing to substantiate it. No, "studies" conducted by energy industry shills do not count. Produce credible citations to support your assertion, or STFU.