Coping with public health

[Marnica]

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/180/10/1080

This journal article is so funny! They are talking about what a challenge it is now for provax folks because of the internet.

Antivaccination postings illustrate some of the challenges of this new medium. The usual public health response to concerns about vaccination has been to disseminate well-researched evidence that refutes the claims. To an important extent public health officials have also tried to not bring too much attention to claims made by vaccine critics because of fear that a public debate and subsequent airing of those views, regardless of scientific merit, might lend credence to the claims

bolding mine

OH NO! we don't want individuals to express concern! Our concerns are not based on scientific merit. Our voicing our concerns may actually lend credence to the claims . We can't have that now can we??!

[poppan]

I liked this quote:

De facto, it juxtaposes vetted scientific opinion against information from critics, crusaders and conspiracy theorists, which undermines the critical foundation of trust between public health officials and the public. This trust is necessary for activities that sometimes require restrictions on individual liberties or impositions on individuals for the benefits of the population.

Sorry if your kid dies or gets type I diabetes or becomes autistic -- it's for the good of the whole so other people don't have to take time off work when their kids get measles.

[Sileree]

"... Web 2.0 provides those with alternative beliefs a virtual environment where they can hear their viewpoints echoed and become more confident that their assertions are correct."

You know, this works both ways. Pro-vax people can do the same on their own blogs and such.