Vaccine support - Monitoring "anti-vax" websites - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 14 Old 02-23-2011, 06:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-51Y5CTK-5&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F24%2F2011&_rdoc=5&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%235188%232011%23999709989%232914785%23FLA%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=5188&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=22&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=74c20758ac49ea62992a74aab4bf3dde&searchtype=a

 

 

Quote:
 Monitoring the changes can permit public health workers to mount programs more quickly to counter the opposition arguments.

 

and

 

Quote:
 Additionally, opposition claims commonly appeal to emotions whereas the supporting claims appeal to reason. Effective vaccine support may be better served by including more emotionally compelling content.  eyesroll.gif

 

 

Well - the way I see it, as the oppostion grows and more people begin to demand unbiased science, less bull---t, and answers to certain questions regarding safety, the more public health will spend their time and money monitoring "anti vax" sites (cause any sites that questions vaccines is anti-vax right?) to wage new, and hopefully more convincing media campaigns to silence the dissenters.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#2 of 14 Old 02-23-2011, 12:19 PM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I didn't read anything about "silencing" anyone.  And frankly, I don't get why it would be surprising that pro-vax people would read anti-vax websites and try to address the arguments contained therein.  I mean, the anti-vax community reads pro-vax websites and tries to address the arguments contained therein, right?  It just makes sense to try to understand the concerns of those with whom you differ.  Doesn't it?

 

Have you read the whole article, or just the abstract?

no5no5 is offline  
#3 of 14 Old 02-23-2011, 12:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post

I didn't read anything about "silencing" anyone.  And frankly, I don't get why it would be surprising that pro-vax people would read anti-vax websites and try to address the arguments contained therein.  I mean, the anti-vax community reads pro-vax websites and tries to address the arguments contained therein, right?  It just makes sense to try to understand the concerns of those with whom you differ.  Doesn't it?

 

Have you read the whole article, or just the abstract?



 The above is merely my interpretation. I agree it makes sense to try and understand the concerns of those with whom you differ, but I don't think that this is happening in this case. In general vaccine defenders are not addressing parents (and others) concerns when it comes to vaccine safety. They merely tell us we are wrong. Period.

 

The wording of the above also does not convey addressing concerns as their main objective. JMO

 

I did not read the entire article as it is a pay for access article.


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#4 of 14 Old 02-23-2011, 04:50 PM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It sounded to me like they were saying that they should figure out why some people choose not to vaccinate so that they can make a more compelling case for vaccination for those people.  For instance, if people are worried about thimerosal, it makes sense to reassure them that thimerosal is no longer being used in most kids' vaccines.  If they're not worried about thimerosal, it doesn't make sense to even bring it up.  And so on.  If some doctors aren't willing to do more than just tell you that you are wrong, that doesn't mean that it is somehow nefarious for other doctors to suggest that that is a bad policy. 

 

And TBH I don't think it is helpful for the anti-vax community to characterize the suggestion that pro-vax people attempt to "counter [anti-vax] arguments" as an attempt to "silence the dissenters."  In fact, I think it's sort of ironic that you'd use that phrase, given that it seems like an emotional, rather than a rational, response.  I'll see if I can access the full article later (for free), but I'd be very surprised if it includes any discussion at all about how to silence anti-vaxers. 

no5no5 is offline  
#5 of 14 Old 02-24-2011, 06:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post

It sounded to me like they were saying that they should figure out why some people choose not to vaccinate so that they can make a more compelling case for vaccination for those people.  For instance, if people are worried about thimerosal, it makes sense to reassure them that thimerosal is no longer being used in most kids' vaccines.  If they're not worried about thimerosal, it doesn't make sense to even bring it up.  And so on.  If some doctors aren't willing to do more than just tell you that you are wrong, that doesn't mean that it is somehow nefarious for other doctors to suggest that that is a bad policy. 

 

And TBH I don't think it is helpful for the anti-vax community to characterize the suggestion that pro-vax people attempt to "counter [anti-vax] arguments" as an attempt to "silence the dissenters."  In fact, I think it's sort of ironic that you'd use that phrase, given that it seems like an emotional, rather than a rational, response.  I'll see if I can access the full article later (for free), but I'd be very surprised if it includes any discussion at all about how to silence anti-vaxers. 



 

 If you find a way to get the entire article for free, please let us know. When i tried, it said it was $31.50.

 

Again I never said the article says that it is an attempt to "silence dissenters", what I said was that was MY interpretation. If you don't find that helpful, that's ok. It's still my interpretation. As for it being emotional - You are absolutely correct and I see the irony of my statement in hindsight. I'm an emotional being and this (whether people like it or not) is an emotionally charged topic. I've been around the bend and back with people IRL about my choices. Some of it has not been pretty. I suppose (as with most people) my experience has shaped my POV. It's funny my husband asked me just this morning if I was PMSing because I seemed "emotional" about something else. wink1.gif


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#6 of 14 Old 02-24-2011, 08:06 AM
 
chaoticzenmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

INteresting that they claim anti-vaxxers are "emotional."  There's emotion on both sides, but my main reasons for not vaccinating are not emotional.  I disagree with the deep conflicts of interest within the industry.  Doctors are supposed to have "expertise" but how much expertise can they have when their professors are being paid by pharmaceutical companies and thier textbooks are being written by pharmaceuticals.  How can a doctor who can be sued for the slightest misstatement really tell you anything that goes against the CDC or the AMA?   Well, who pays the cdc and the ama?  Go look at their list of major contributers and you'll see a big list of pharmaceuticals there.  There hasn't been a single study with  vaccinated against non-vaccinated.  Nobody is putting a stop to these conflicts of interest.  Nobody is doing a real study of the safety.  

 

The vaccine advocates say that vaccines have been proved safe and that they trust their doctors.  Ok, but I disagree with both of those. Vaccines haven't been proven safe and your doctor isn't an expert if his education was supplied by pharmaceutical companies and his advice is constricted by the CDC and the AMA.

 

The emotional part of my reasons are in my home...my kids, the first two who were vaccinated for 1 and 3 years and were constantly sick.  My last two children who are not vaxxed are almost never sick and when they do get sick, it's barely anything. They younger two have never had an ear infection, but the older two had them constantly.  In my house, I've seen the proof that vaccines do nothing to enhance the health of children.  

 

I don't know how vaccinating based on fear of disease is any less emotional than not vaccinating based on fear of vaccine reactions.  And they are trying to target non-vaccinating people based on emotion.  The pertussis campaign is full of emotion.  So,i guess if you were basing your decision on just emotion, that might work.  I admit that it does get me a little, just like stories of horrid vaccine reactions do. 

Pookietooth and yummus like this.

Our children make a study of us in a way no one else ever will.  If we don't act according to our values, they will know.~Starhawk Rainbow.gif  New  User Agreement! http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/user-agreement

chaoticzenmom is offline  
#7 of 14 Old 02-24-2011, 10:45 AM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaoticzenmom View Post

INteresting that they claim anti-vaxxers are "emotional." 

 

Yeah, I think so too.  That's actually why I want to read the article, to see which websites they are referring to.  Wouldn't it be funny if this was one of them?  Marnica, I can access most published studies for free through my local university library system.  If you live near a university, especially if it's one with a medical school, you might have that option as well. 

no5no5 is offline  
#8 of 14 Old 02-25-2011, 01:02 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

That's nothing compared to "risk communication", Marnica, which is practiced right out there, out in the open, to emotionally skew us into being biased in a provax way. It's considered totally legit. And it's the new word to describe "propaganda science".

 

One example:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/08/07/health-marketing-risk-communication-and-the-media/

mamakay is offline  
#9 of 14 Old 02-25-2011, 12:42 PM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Maybe what they meant by "emotional" is that a lot of antivax sites tell stories of kids who were allegedly injured by vaccines. These stories, even if true, are anecdotal and not statistically relevant, but are of course emotionally relevant and emotion-charged. Whereas with pro-vax sites, they don't really do that as much. At least they didn't used to. I am seeing more personal stories of kids who died or were injured from VPDs, but that's only recently. And certainly not on government sites, like the CDC or AAP. Whether that's fighting fire with fire, or using a relevant real-life example depends on how you look at it, I guess.

 

I think that a lot of the reason that anti-vax sentiments are thought to be emotionally-based is because at first they didn't HAVE a lot of science, they had to rely on emotional, real life examples. I dont' meant that in a deregoatory way at all. In fact, IMO, it was these people who spurred on a lot of the studies into the safety of vaccines. They didn't have the science because it hadn't been done thoroughly yet, and so their request was for that to change. Whereas provax people at that time were using arguments comprised of charts and epidemiology. Relevant, but not terribly emotional.

 

While I don't think that the emotional appeal should override the scientific evidence, I think it's a useful way of conveying the impact of their decisions to people. Whether that's from showing a child who has been allegedly severely damaged by vaccines, or showing how a baby who has pertussis struggles to breathe. I think for most people, it just makes these things more real, yk?

heathergirl67 is offline  
#10 of 14 Old 02-25-2011, 06:42 PM
 
chaoticzenmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post

Maybe what they meant by "emotional" is that a lot of antivax sites tell stories of kids who were allegedly injured by vaccines. These stories, even if true, are anecdotal and not statistically relevant, but are of course emotionally relevant and emotion-charged. Whereas with pro-vax sites, they don't really do that as much. At least they didn't used to. I am seeing more personal stories of kids who died or were injured from VPDs, but that's only recently. And certainly not on government sites, like the CDC or AAP. Whether that's fighting fire with fire, or using a relevant real-life example depends on how you look at it, I guess.

 

I think that a lot of the reason that anti-vax sentiments are thought to be emotionally-based is because at first they didn't HAVE a lot of science, they had to rely on emotional, real life examples. I dont' meant that in a deregoatory way at all. In fact, IMO, it was these people who spurred on a lot of the studies into the safety of vaccines. They didn't have the science because it hadn't been done thoroughly yet, and so their request was for that to change. Whereas provax people at that time were using arguments comprised of charts and epidemiology. Relevant, but not terribly emotional.

 

While I don't think that the emotional appeal should override the scientific evidence, I think it's a useful way of conveying the impact of their decisions to people. Whether that's from showing a child who has been allegedly severely damaged by vaccines, or showing how a baby who has pertussis struggles to breathe. I think for most people, it just makes these things more real, yk?


Well, about as real as watching the Evening news I guess.  A lot of scary stuff that's not likely to happen to you but would be absolutely horrible if it did.  Both VPD horror stories and vaccine injuries. 


Our children make a study of us in a way no one else ever will.  If we don't act according to our values, they will know.~Starhawk Rainbow.gif  New  User Agreement! http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/user-agreement

chaoticzenmom is offline  
#11 of 14 Old 02-25-2011, 08:39 PM
 
elus0814's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: where the air force says
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post

Maybe what they meant by "emotional" is that a lot of antivax sites tell stories of kids who were allegedly injured by vaccines. These stories, even if true, are anecdotal and not statistically relevant, but are of course emotionally relevant and emotion-charged. Whereas with pro-vax sites, they don't really do that as much. At least they didn't used to. I am seeing more personal stories of kids who died or were injured from VPDs, but that's only recently. And certainly not on government sites, like the CDC or AAP. Whether that's fighting fire with fire, or using a relevant real-life example depends on how you look at it, I guess.

 


I see it as emotional in some ways on both sides. Antivax arguments often include stories of children who were damaged by vaccines and provax arguments often include stories about children who were injured by those diseases. I'd really like to see a provax site or information source admit there are dangers. I see lots of provax sites that are written in a patronizing tone that makes parents who question vaccines feel like they're being silly or overprotective. Phrases such as 'Q: Aren't vaccines dangerous? A: Of course not! Vaccines are safe but the diseases they will prevent your children from getting are very dangerous'. That doesn't answer the question with any facts, it claims that vaccines will certainly help your child without fail, it uses very simple language which can make a parent feel less intelligent than the person writing it and therefor more likely to do what they are being 'told' to, and it skirts the issue so parents won't ask any more questions.

elus0814 is offline  
#12 of 14 Old 02-28-2011, 09:23 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It is an emotional subject. 

 

As a lifelong non-vaxer, I know I could discuss breastfeeding or diapering with a group of young parents in a cordial manner.  

 

Take the same group of young parents and change the subject to simply questioning vaccines, and the conversation becomes rabid.  Yes, it does.  There is emotion, fear, and anger on both sides.  Some parents recall stories of dead or damaged children in their families from VPDs and other parents recall stories of family members with vaccine damage or death from a vaccine.  Both sides are right.  Both have legitimate fears.  

 

Knowledge will set them free, not fear.  

 

As for silencing non-vaxers, that is a legitimate fear since the government is pushing vaccines and doctors deliver them.  If a parent refuses or questions a vaccination procedure, there are practices across this nation that will refuse to accept them as their patients.  That is a form of shunning, ignoring, and silencing the opposition.  The medical doctors, drug companies, and government see themselves as the authorities and how could anyone question them since they have such a good track record for being honest with us.

 

 

mamakah likes this.
member234098 is offline  
#13 of 14 Old 03-01-2011, 06:47 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post

That's nothing compared to "risk communication", Marnica, which is practiced right out there, out in the open, to emotionally skew us into being biased in a provax way. It's considered totally legit. And it's the new word to describe "propaganda science".

 

One example:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/08/07/health-marketing-risk-communication-and-the-media/

Thank you for posting this most illuminating link.

I sat here and made DH read it. I had no idea it was this crazy. I am at a loss for words.
 

 

Ldavis24 is offline  
#14 of 14 Old 03-15-2011, 09:25 PM
 
newmum35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post

That's nothing compared to "risk communication", Marnica, which is practiced right out there, out in the open, to emotionally skew us into being biased in a provax way. It's considered totally legit. And it's the new word to describe "propaganda science".

 

One example:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/08/07/health-marketing-risk-communication-and-the-media/

Yeah thats just sick. Do people have no morals? If your boss gives you this assignment FIND another JOB!

Just the simple fact that they have to use all these sneaky strategies to sell you the flu vaccine should tell you something though. I mean really. If it was that great it wouldnt need any marketing at all and people would be begging for it. The fact is most people get over the flu just fine, and have been for generations now. I think this is one of the most pathetic vaccines we have and it really just causes me to lose faith in all of the other vaccines too. Because if they are selling one thing that is a lie, who is to say the others are also not a lie?  Its ones like the flu and chicken pox that really cause me to doubt even those that have been around since the beginning, kwim? (diptheria, tetanus)

 


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
newmum35 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off