Everyone, please read this - Page 2

[Deborah]

Just came across a site that has perfect examples of communication problems. Here is a good one:

"The AAP should be dedicated to promptly providing truthful information about this situation to pediatricians. We must follow the three basic rules: (1) Act quickly to inform pediatricians that the products have more mercury than we realized (2) Be open with consumers about why we didn't catch this earlier (3) Show contrition...To keep faith, we must be open and honest now and move forward quickly to replace these products...This is what American parents want to hear from their pediatricians. Anything less may cause them to lose faith in our recommendations."

and here is a direct link to a copy of the memo obtained via the Freedom of Information Act: http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/1.8.pdf

[JMJ]

Thank you, mammakay, for posting this. It has been good food for thought. I think that Peter Sandman's articles show that he is far more honest and empathetic to our cause for vaccine freedom than most people who are trying to convince us to vax, but I think that he is nonetheless trying to convince us to vax. He's willing to say that there are some risks with vaccinating and that the risk of the flu at least has been overstated, but he seems to believe that because he is *honest,* any logical, knowledgable person would come to the same conclusion as he. It is not that he presents an unbiased point of view. It is that he uses honesty as a selling point.

I don't question Dr. Sandman's desire to be honest about the risks, I just question his (and everybody else's including my) ability to really give us all the information we would find relavent on a topic. Even our beloved Dr. Sears who wants to give us a choice about every vaccine and every disease but also thinks that pretty much every child should get pretty much every vaccine in pretty close to the same time frame as the CDC recommends is guilty of this sort of bias. I learned a whole lot from his book that helped me make decisions on a number of the vaccines, but he left out the fact that the Hep A and Varicella vaxes contain cells from aborted fetuses (He mentioned this fact in regards to Rubella). This was critical to my decision on these vaxes since I am very pro-life. He also cited a study in the back of the book that connected the Hib vax and Juvenile Diabetes, but he did not include any discussion of this study in his section on the Hib vaccine. I had made the decision to vax my baby for Hib before I saw this citation, very shortly before she would have received this vax. Juvenile Diabetes runs in my family (even before the Hib vaccine existed), so I would be very concerned about adding any additional risk factors for my kids. I don't think that Dr. Sears or Dr. Sandman wish to mislead people by failing to provide pertinent information, but that is a fact of our humanity. We could not possibly think of everything that might be important to someone else's decision making process because we are blinded by what we think is important. To get all the important information, you really have to let go of this idea of an unbiased source and look at multiple sources.

I am also uncomfortable with his high/low hazard, high/low outrage system. From what I can tell, he does not appear to have an objective method of assigning these labels to risks. I would not classify the flu as high-hazard, low-outrage. The hazard is not high for most people, generally only people whose health is failing anyway, and I think that advertising has created a moderate outrage over the flu by telling people that they can avoid a week of misery by putting up with a little shot (After all, 40% of healthcare workers don't get the shot for nothing). He is probably right that the flu shot is low-hazard (that very few people would have adverse affects), but I would hardly consider it high-outrage. Most people really aren't worried about it or any other vaccine.

I think the real problem (besides not having the legal freedom to make our own medical decisions) is that it is so hard to make informed decisions. There are not studies on the risks to vaxed children vs. unvaxed children, and performing most of those studies would be unethical. Statistics on the risks of VPD's are clouded by the inclusion of people who may be more or less at risk of the diseases than our children and the fact that most people are vaccinated. Statistics on the risks before the vaccine or the risks in less developed countries are less relavent because of advances in medical care and nutrition in our country. Statistics on the risks of vaccines are limited to VAERS, very shortsighted and uninvestigated claims.

I do feel like we S/D vaxers (Actually, we are just selecting, not delying.) are caught in the middle, though I choose to side with non-vaxers and would like to side with people who made a deliberate choice to have all the vaccines. The laws certainly protect people who get all the vaccines, and most states will give exemptions for people who want to refuse all vaccines, especially if they claim that it is part of their religious beliefs. My state has a philosophical exemption that I use to justify my selective vaxes, but it is obviously there for people who have a philosophical reason for refusing ALL vaxes. The wording doesn't specifically state this, so I think any legal interpretation would allow for selective vaxing. It just seems like culture and medicine and all the arguments that I hear seem to be for or against vaxing as if all vaccines are equally safe or dangerous methods of preventing equally harmful diseases for all people, so the factors are the same to accept or refuse all.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Just came across a site that has perfect examples of communication problems. Here is a good one:



and here is a direct link to a copy of the memo obtained via the Freedom of Information Act: http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/1.8.pdf

Can you imagine how different things would be if they'd taken that advice, instead of going with the "We only removed thimerosal to calm down the lunatic fringe pseudoscientists" message?

[mamakay]

Thank you, mammakay, for posting this. It has been good food for thought. I think that Peter Sandman's articles show that he is far more honest and empathetic to our cause for vaccine freedom than most people who are trying to convince us to vax, but I think that he is nonetheless trying to convince us to vax. He's willing to say that there are some risks with vaccinating and that the risk of the flu at least has been overstated, but he seems to believe that because he is *honest,* any logical, knowledgable person would come to the same conclusion as he. It is not that he presents an unbiased point of view. It is that he uses honesty as a selling point.

I used to think Sandman was very nearly "evil", because he's really almost a pro-vaccine propaganda scientist. Yes, his job is to convince us to vax. He's correctly identified that subtle (or not so subtle at times) deceptions are counter-productive long term. Really, it's the CDC's free pass on manipulating the masses through what I see as lies and revisionist history and often cherry picked, bad science (especially when it's paired with the art of instilling fear to achieve the "desired behavioral objective") that makes me incredibly angry.

To get all the important information, you really have to let go of this idea of an unbiased source and look at multiple sources.

I completely agree.

I am also uncomfortable with his high/low hazard, high/low outrage system. From what I can tell, he does not appear to have an objective method of assigning these labels to risks. I would not classify the flu as high-hazard, low-outrage.

I'm not sure, but I don't think he approves of "selling" flu for healthy adults as "high hazard". I think he thinks flu is only high hazard for healthy adults when they're potentiallly able to transmit it to someone who is actually high risk.
It's all further complicated by the fact that a pandemic has been considered recently as a very, very high hazard scenario, and increasing uptake of seasonal flu shots has been "the plan" to prevent a birdflu apocalypse. So, it's messy.

He is probably right that the flu shot is low-hazard (that very few people would have adverse affects), but I would hardly consider it high-outrage. Most people really aren't worried about it or any other vaccine.

I think he thinks it becomes high outrage (to some people) when 1) it's "oversold", and 2) when it becomes mandated.

It just seems like culture and medicine and all the arguments that I hear seem to be for or against vaxing as if all vaccines are equally safe or dangerous methods of preventing equally harmful diseases for all people, so the factors are the same to accept or refuse all.

I know. That's a really common misconception, and most of both the pro and anti vaccine literature reinforces that view.

[Deborah]

This is an interesting discussion.

One of the pieces that drives me crazy is the selective use of data. Here are some examples:

Vaccine safety data is based, for the most part, on studies that exclude many individuals from the study. Once a vaccine is approved, these individuals are not excluded from receiving the vaccine. However, their "unexpected" reactions to the vaccine are discounted, because they didn't show up in the clinical trials.

Disease data is distorted in lots of ways. For example, the death rate from measles cited by the CDC, seems to be based on reported cases. Obviously, cases which are reported will generally be a slice of the total and also the most serious cases. Another remarkable one is the 36,000 deaths per year from the influenza, another CDC number.

What I'm trying to say is that statistics around diseases and vaccines are almost always packaged to help deliver the message. Truth has very little to do with it.

[DevaMajka]

It is really nice to read this:

You can exaggerate some when you’re trying to get apathetic people more concerned about a health problem – which is what health department communication often tries to do. But when people aren’t apathetic, when they’re skeptical, suspicious, worried about vaccine safety and government interference in their lives, when you’re trying to reassure them rather than alert them, then even small exaggerations (pretending to be 100% right when you’re only 98% right) can do you in.

It puts to words how I feel about the CDC and the pro-vaccine camp. I'm not necessarily anti-vaccine, but the fact that they put out so much misinformation makes me VERY wary of absolutely everything they say. It almost makes me think that if they have to fudge the truth so much, then vaccines must be bad. It doesn't really seem logical, but it's how I feel a lot of the time.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by DevaMajka

It is really nice to read this:


It puts to words how I feel about the CDC and the pro-vaccine camp. I'm not necessarily anti-vaccine, but the fact that they put out so much misinformation makes me VERY wary of absolutely everything they say. It almost makes me think that if they have to fudge the truth so much, then vaccines must be bad. It doesn't really seem logical, but it's how I feel a lot of the time.

I think that's about the way most of us feel.
It's also interesting how the behaviors of "vaccine zealotry" appear, from the outside looking in, indistinguishable from the behaviors of "pharma shillery". lol.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by mamakay

I think that's about the way most of us feel.
It's also interesting how the behaviors of "vaccine zealotry" appear, from the outside looking in, indistinguishable from the behaviors of "pharma shillery". lol.

combine that reality with the revolving door between regulators and industry!

The same person may be chanting the same mantra--the only thing changed is the source of the pay check.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Deborah

combine that reality with the revolving door between regulators and industry!

The same person may be chanting the same mantra--the only thing changed is the source of the pay check.

Yeah. The golden revolving door.
I wonder if this phenomenon is as strong outside of the US? Are heads of European versions of the CDC as likely to, say, land positions as the head of Merck's vaccine division?

Also, dissing "evidence based medicine" in favor of "weaker-science based medicine" seems to be a uniquely American thing, too. I'm not sure what to make of any of it.

[LauraN]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Yeah. The golden revolving door.
I wonder if this phenomenon is as strong outside of the US? Are heads of European versions of the CDC as likely to, say, land positions as the head of Merck's vaccine division?

I don't know about this specifically, but my sister in France did tell me that the French government overestimated how many people would want the H1N1 vaccine and found themselves with a big surplus. So what did they do? Start a campaign trying to make H1N1 sound very, very scary. And they were successful--after a few TV ads and billboards, suddenly everyone ran out to get vaccinated.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Can you imagine how different things would be if they'd taken that advice, instead of going with the "We only removed thimerosal to calm down the lunatic fringe pseudoscientists" message?

Amen! The dictates of PR 101 call for validating the problem and the public's concerns and then reassuring the public of steps taken to rectify the matter promptly.

Take a look at how Toyota handled the recent recall of its vehicles:

“We’re committed to doing everything we can – as fast as we can – to restore consumer trust in Toyota, and these recalls are part of this effort,” said Jim Lentz, President and Chief Operating Officer, Toyota Motor Sales. “We regret the inconvenience this recall will cause to Prius and HS 250h owners, and will do our best with the support of our dealers to make sure that it is conducted in the most trouble-free manner possible.”

If the vaccine proponents had been smart--as they were decidedly not--here is how the same concept would have played out:

"We at Merck/CDC/AAP/Other Vax-Promoting Agency take the safety of vaccines as seriously as we take the diseases that they are intended to prevent. In response to allegations and parents' concerns about a potential link between the MMR vaccine and autism, we have assembled a team of researchers to conduct a rapid and thorough investigation into the matter. We assure you that we remain committed to providing safe and effective vaccines for children."

Now imagine if the good folks of Toyota had said:

"Toyotas are perfectly safe. Our own internal researchers have concluded that they are. So you should still be buying Toyotas. And if you disagree with us, you're anti-science. But (sigh!) to appease the anti-Toyota faction, we'll put new brakes in them. There. Happy now?"

Yea, there are plenty of differences. But vaccines and Toyotas are both consumer products. And I can choose not to vaccinate just as easily as I can choose not to drive a Toyota.

[Deborah]

And I can choose not to vaccinate just as easily as I can choose not to drive a Toyota.

Can you? For most parents it is a bitterly hard choice.

With cars, there are a lot of companies making them and a range of brands to choose from.

Not with vaccines.

If someone decides to live without a car, life can be awkward (I went 18 1/2 years sans cars), but it is not impossible unless you live in a rural area with no public transportation and no one who will give you a ride to the grocery store.

But if you decide to skip vaccines...

What is the alternative?

For most people they have no idea that it is possible to give up vaccinating their children.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Can you? For most parents it is a bitterly hard choice.

With cars, there are a lot of companies making them and a range of brands to choose from.

Not with vaccines.

True.

If someone decides to live without a car, life can be awkward (I went 18 1/2 years sans cars), but it is not impossible unless you live in a rural area with no public transportation and no one who will give you a ride to the grocery store.

Not without a car. Without a Toyota, (which I drive )

[jessjgh1]

I found this interesting: http://www.psandman.com/gst2010.htm#innumeracy
Question posed:
Why did the CDC misrepresent its swine flu mortality data – innumeracy, dishonesty, or what?
Part of his response:
"Another reason I am convinced that the CDC is well-aware of the population mortality data: Most CDC statements about the vulnerability of different age groups to swine flu have been misleading rather than flat-out false – for example, eliding from the accurate claim that the pandemic has killed far more children than seasonal flu usually kills to the false implication that it is deadlier to children than to older people. "
...Instead, it has crafted messages that carefully mislead without lying."

Jessica

[newmum35]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

I think it's a very tactful way to say someone wants to control you, doesn't give a crap about you, but will sweeten it up by saying it's for your own good.

I don't know if I missed his overall point or what, but the entire thing left me

Yeah, I agree. the whole thing left me with a bad taste in my mouth too. It was an interesting read but he is obviously extremely pro-vax.

He wholeheartedly believes in the influenza program for all! You really can't get any more pro-vax than that. To me, that tells me he has not really researched vaccines and their effects on the health of the body, he trusts them 100% and believes in vaccination 100% or he would not be so enthusiastically recommending that everyone get them!

I didn't like the underlying message that vaccines are good for us! (If he was trying to be subtle, he didn't fool me; are you sure he isn't working for big pharma?) If he is sincere, then I wish he would put the same amount of time and enthusiasm into studying the work of doctors who HAVE been researching for years on vaccines and their effect on the body. There is an ugly side to vaccines that he has conveniently left out.

One sentence I disagree with that shows his ignorance (unless it was a subtle attempt at brainwashing?):

The oral vaccine is a live, weakened vaccine. It is significantly less safe than the injected (dead) vaccine, and it’s now illegal in most developed countries. He acknowledges that "one vaccinee in a million gets polio from the vaccine itself"

Prior to that he stated it is MORE dangerous than the IPV... so he apparently feels that even LESS than 1 in a million children will be harmed from the 4 IPV injections they give today. Really? A million children will receive a total of 4 million shots (collectively speaking) and that not one of them will suffer damage? He obviously thinks that getting polio from the vaccine is the only type of damage one could possibly get from the vaccine. (since that is ruled out with the new "dead" vaccine of course.)

He does write very well, but I do wish he would put his intelligence to better use.

P.S. He mentions on another page his wife is a physician. That does help to put things in a bit of perspective.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Also, dissing "evidence based medicine" in favor of "weaker-science based medicine" seems to be a uniquely American thing, too. I'm not sure what to make of any of it.

Oh don't get me started. When I first heard the name of this blog, I got excited. I naively thought that a group of physicians had finally come out to reform the practice of medicine from within, to demand that HCPs themselves exercised some evidence-based practice. But far from altering the status quo, the bloggers are doing everything they can to defend it.