A switch in tactics…..

[kathymuggle]

** this thread is meant to be a conservation among those who are non-vax and non-vax friendly**
 

I am sensing a shift in tactics lately from the pro-vax contingent.

It used to be that all information (or not all, but much) information was put out there and people would discuss (attack) the information they did not agree with.  Some discussion was useful and thoughtful, and some was just smear campaigns, but still.

Over the last month or so I have noticed a definite trend where pro-vaxxers have tried to suppress information, even before it gets out.

Evidence for the above:

1.  Ted talks deciding it won't host any science information that is not fairly mainstream.

 http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1370142/disappointed-with-tedx

2.  A bunch of pro-vax people (or pro-science) being annoyed that alternative points of view are presented to the public through the media.  They claim the non-vax position is bogus and bad science, so therefore should not be given airspace (friggin dictators…)

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1368841/here-we-go-again

http://theconversation.edu.au/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080

The why this is going on is very interesting.

There is a bit of a backlash against vaccines at the moment.  Both the flu and pertussis vaccines are not as good as they hoped.  Paul Thorsen.  CSpan.

Maybe they are running scared?   Let's suppress information before it even gets out?

Do you, fellow non-vaxxers, think suppression of information  is a trend or just a temporary blip?  

“Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship.” 
― Bruce Coville

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/16/12 at 8:13am

[Jennyanydots]

I don't know. The pro vax folks on mothering sure seem to be somewhat coordinated, though. I just read another thread where one poster referred to their agenda along the lines of "we are just trying to..." and it stood out to me.

I have a journalist friend who has such seething disdain for vax hesitant parents. I broached the subject with her once (in the past year) and she was so visibly disgusted with me. She had no real argument though, other than to say that the people who design vaccine programs are good people... and some drivel about Wakefield. Lately she's been posting stuff on fb like the slate article attacking the congressional hearing. This is a childless woman, btw. Another childless, unmarried "friend" of mine from law school unfriended me on fb after he posted that people who don't vax deserve to have their children die. I couldn't not speak up, but you should have seen the cheers he got for that, and the flames I got for my (rather mild) statement of disagreement.

I guess if I have a point it's that people I've talked with about vaccines (and those are just a couple of examples), seem brainwashed by propaganda. (And i'm not saying you are brainwashed if you decide to vax) These otherwise high functioning, intelligent people have a knee jerk reaction to anyone else questioning the party line, and that reaction is not science based or the result of serious study of the issue. The pro vax position is deeply intrenched in our culture because the word "vaccine" seems synonymous with "cure" or "health" and and who doesn't want those? It requires a perspective shift to tease apart the components of the vaccine concept and few people are willing to invest the time and attention it takes to understand the controversy.

So, with prevailing sentiments firmly and blindly in the pro camp, it just makes sense that a rise in questioning will result in a rise in backlash. I only hope that the questions will be loud and the questioners persistent, so that we can finally make headway in improving the safety, accountability, and access to information that our kids all deserve.

[pickle18]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 

So, with prevailing sentiments firmly and blindly in the pro camp, it just makes sense that a rise in questioning will result in a rise in backlash. I only hope that the questions will be loud and the questioners persistent, so that we can finally make headway in improving the safety, accountability, and access to information that our kids all deserve.

  That pretty much sums it up.  I find it really strange and kind of horrifying that there IS such a strong division amongst parents.  I'm not sure why or how parents simply looking for answers or additional information has devolved into such fierce acrimony.  Parents of victims vs. pharm companies - ok, get that battle.  But parent vs. parent?  

I think there is some blind defensiveness that I've encountered on both sides of this and (many another) issue, cherry-picking information, closed minds, knee-jerk responses.  Like Jennyanydots, it seems only human to me (a la Newton's third law).

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 

 Another childless, unmarried "friend" of mine from law school unfriended me on fb after he posted that people who don't vax deserve to have their children die. I couldn't not speak up, but you should have seen the cheers he got for that, and the flames I got for my (rather mild) statement of disagreement.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

And we wonder why there are so many bullies in schools these days.  When parents act like that, it shouldn't be surprising.

[HappyHappyMommy]

Hi All, I've closed the thread for moderator review.

[kathymuggle]

and re-openned….

Thanks HHM

[HappyHappyMommy]

Hi All,

I'm reopening this thread. Please keep the discussion focused on supporting other non-vaxxers with responding to suppression of information. When posting, please keep in mind the forum guidelines which state that "While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others. Please respect each other and refrain from statements that are condescending, hurtful, judgmental, and belittling."

Thank you,

HHM
 

[HappyHappyMommy]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

and re-openned….

Thanks HHM

Thanks for your edit to the OP, kathymuggle.

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I am sensing a shift in tactics lately from the pro-vax contingent.

I've noticed this too. Mainly, their inability or unwillingness to admit that pharmaceuticals might be harmful or overused. Vaccine debates quickly turn into debates about drugs in general. I understand why, since vaccines are drugs. If they admit a flaw with one type of drug or study, then it might call vaccines into question. So, admit no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and vaccines will always be safe from scrutiny.

Also, mock people who question "big pharma." Call them conspiracy theorists if they ever question anything "mainstream".

[sonjagrabel]

I think that maybe part of the reason that there is such a strong reaction is that many of those who are pro-vax think that non-vaxxers are a threat to their child. I was really surprised the first time someone said this to me. I looked at it as a peronal decision - just like all of my other parenting decsions. They saw it as a threat to their own child's health. So, I guess if you feel your own child is threatened, you might be more inclined to be more aggresive in your tactics. To answer the original question, I suspect it (suppression of info, etc) will get worse as the vaccine controversy heats up. (The more people who question vaccines, the more threatened pro-vaxxers will feel. . .) Ironically, the more I hear from pro-vaxxers, the LESS likely to vaccinate I become.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Do you, fellow non-vaxxers, think suppression of information  is a trend or just a temporary blip?  

It's definitely a trend, and it may be for the long-term.

The Internet making information instantly available has been a game-changer, so the tactics of persuasion will have to change.

In the past all the "authorities" had to do was use fear-mongering and shaming to keep people in the herd. 

That's not working anymore now that people are finding that there's plenty of ways to stay healthy without vaccines.

Quote:

There is a bit of a backlash against vaccines at the moment.  Both the flu and pertussis vaccines are not as good as they hoped.  Paul Thorsen.  CSpan.

Maybe they are running scared?   Let's suppress information before it even gets out?

Well I'd be scared too if the main thing I was relying on to "protect" me from disease didn't work so well.

But the mainstream media will probably keep publishing news stories exposing vaccine failure with the proviso that it's better than nothing. 

Too bad for them, many young people now eschew mainstream news sources.

 

“Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship.” 
― Bruce Coville

    

Yep. It worked so well before the Internet. This may be why there have been so many bills trying to supress it, using terrorism or child pornography as reasons why its necessary.

[Chloebelle]

Ironically, the more I hear from pro-vaxxers, the LESS likely to vaccinate I become.

This.

I believe we should ALL be open to the possibility that we've been deceived about vaccines. In the first place, there's simply too much money behind vaccines for me to trust that the pushers aren't doing it for their own gain. And let's face it, we have a population problem that is only going to get worse. You telling me that our Government and the elite that run the show are looking for ways to keep us healthy and strong? Please. They're up to no good, and they want us sick, not healthy. Forcing vaccines on us is for their good, not ours.

 

While I respect everyone's decisions regarding vaccination, I am so happy that I made the choice NOT to vaccinate my children. Each and everyday that passes, I am more and more grateful for their health and vitality, and the fact that their immune systems are as God intended. I don't care what tactics the pro-vax camp throw at me. I will not be swayed.

Edited by Chloebelle - 12/17/12 at 2:09pm

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

The Internet making information instantly available has been a game-changer, so the tactics of persuasion will have to change.

In the past all the "authorities" had to do was use fear-mongering and shaming to keep people in the herd. 

I do think the internet has caused things to be a game changer.  Once upon a time people really only did only have their doctors and their personal experience as guiding lights, so to speak. There were (occasionally) books and magazines as well. It is nothing like today, with information at your fingertips. I certainly was not cruising the internet for studies 20 years ago.  

I think the medical and scientific community need to catch up to this new paradigm and figure out how to work with patients in this new world.  The doctors I have known are Ok with this (saw one today who was quite good, actually!) but we know from the numerous stories that abound that patient concerns and decisions are not always treated respectfully.

I suspect the attempt to control information comes out of a few things…but mostly out of a desire for control. The powers that be are used to being in control, want to be in control, and don't take well to not being in control

I doubt this only applies to vaccines.  

I don't think the authorities used fear mongering in the past to keep us in line (at least - not as far as I can remember).  They were seen as an authority, and that was that - while health care decisions now are more a "patient as partner" or "patient in the driver seat" model.  I see more fear mongering done now by the media and authorities.  The internet has contributed to this.  Once upon a time if a baby died of pertussis, it may have made news in the home town;  now it is news all over the internet.  

I think vaccines get over-amplified due to the fact it is a parenting decision (and most people do care about children) and it can theoretically affect other people (the decision to vax can affect other people as well, but I think that is another thread).   

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/17/12 at 1:37pm

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

I've noticed this too. Mainly, their inability or unwillingness to admit that pharmaceuticals might be harmful or overused. Vaccine debates quickly turn into debates about drugs in general. I understand why, since vaccines are drugs. If they admit a flaw with one type of drug or study, then it might call vaccines into question. So, admit no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and vaccines will always be safe from scrutiny.

I noticed this as well.

It could be the love affair with vaccines stems from a love affair with pharmaceuticals.

Honestly, though, I find value in people who can prioritize and be open minded.

"Hey - maybe herbs do work, and this vaccine really isn't necessary…but this vaccine has some value in some circumstances and I think crystal healing might be bunk"  is better than:

"all pharmaceuticals are wonderful!" or even " all alternative medicine is wonderful"

I think we should strive to be smart consumers of health advice and products…and I do not see this being advocated on these boards (which is ironic given the guidelines on informed consent)

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Please re-read post #8 and honor requests for edits before continuing to post. 

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I think the medical and scientific community need to catch up to this new paradigm and figure out how to work with patients in this new world.

Originally Posted by "kathymuggle 

A-feakin-men! I can't link to it per UA rules, but I happened upon an online thread in which a pro-vaxxer was lamenting about how parents are using the Internet to make their decisions instead of "actual science."

Did you catch that? I guess that if you access a study online, it's the Big Bad Internet. If you access the same study as a hard copy, it's "actual science." Gotcha.

I once had a doctor tell me, "Well, you have to take what you read on the Internet with a grain of salt." If he'd replaced the words "on the Internet" with "at the library," do you realize how ridiculous he would have sounded? A book isn't an unreliable source just because it came from the library, just as a website isn't unreliable just because it came from the Internet. That doc either decided that I was either too big of a dolt to conduct and evaluate research . . .or he felt threatened that I was able to do just that.

By the way, the suppression of information isn't just in your imagination. In a 2009 interview with Readers Digest, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius stated that her agency had "reached out" to media outlets and told them not to "give equal weight" to anything countering the government's party line on vaccines. The Obama Administration never did clarify was she meant by "reached out." But something must have happened because mainstream media articles on this topic read like PR pieces for state health departments. And while you Canadians got to enjoy that lively debate between vaccine researcher Tom Jefferson and Health Minister Perry Kendall in The Vancouver Sun, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a US newspaper that would allow that same kind of back-and-forth.