Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Study: "Pro-Vaccine" Messages Not Changing Minds (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1398766-study-pro-vaccine-messages-not-changing-minds.html)

Turquesa 03-09-2014 06:55 PM

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365.abstract

In fact, it only seems to strengthen parents' resolve in not vaccinating!

"Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes."

In light of this study's findings, should Colorado, Minnesota, and other states continue in their efforts to force exempting parents to listen to pro-compliance/pro-vaccine messaging? (Yes, I'm sticking with pro-compliance here. State governments want compliance).

prosciencemum 03-10-2014 12:10 AM

I think it's accepted there will always be some vehemently opposed to vaccinating. What I've read implies that making exemptions harder is aimed at catching not the vehemently opposed, but is intended to make the choice not to vaccinate more work than the one to vaccinate.

Correcting misinformation information is always a good thing in my opinion.

Turquesa 03-10-2014 07:08 AM

Actually, if you read the abstract, these laws don't work. They will piss off parents and backfire in their intent.

By the way, I made my decision to delay chicken pox vaccination based on information from the Immunization Action Coalition and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Please save me a trip to the doctor and correct their misinformation for me.

Mirzam 03-10-2014 10:49 AM

1 Attachment(s)

I tried to get through the Oregon online course, required for exemptions, and I couldn't  stomach it. It was banal propaganda, it was an insult to the intelligence of those who have chosen not to vaccinate or selectively vaccinate.


kathymuggle 03-10-2014 07:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I think it's accepted there will always be some vehemently opposed to vaccinating. What I've read implies that making exemptions harder is aimed at catching not the vehemently opposed, but is intended to make the choice not to vaccinate more work than the one to vaccinate.

 

This may apply for those who are only short one vaccine or are just behind a bit, but intend to vaccinate anyways….but that is about it.

 

Even if the only reason I had not vaccinated was laziness (lol!  It is hard to even write that….) watching one show is far less work than multiple doctor visits.  

 

I think it may capture a tiny bit of the population who is behind on a tiny bit of vaccination - but that is about it.  

 

It could backfire, too.

 

A little OT, but my spouse has currently been prescribed a CPAP machine for sleep apnea.  I was doing a bit of research on it, and it turns out spouses pressuring them to use it decreases usage.

 

People do not like being told what to do (even if it is just "watch this  hour long video")  - it could cause them to dig in their heels. 


kittywitty 03-10-2014 07:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

I tried to get through the Oregon online course, required for exemptions, and I couldn't  stomach it. It was banal propaganda, it was an insult to the intelligence of those who have chosen not to vaccinate or selectively vaccinate.

You have to have vaccinations or file an exemption for an online course? What? That's ridiculous!

Turquesa 03-10-2014 10:28 PM

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance of those who are aware of this research and yet still continue to push for paternalistic policies that force pro-compliance information on parents. It seems like proponents of these laws are taking an I-can't-see-that-I-can't-hear-that response to the research. This show me that these laws are ultimately about punishing skeptical parents, not informing them.

prosciencemum 03-11-2014 01:00 AM

I don't get why sharing information is bad. What are you afraid of?

I do understand it's been shown to not convinced those vehemently opposed to vaccination. I just don't see the evidence that that group contains most parents. Not even most parents who don't vaccinate! I know all of you on here fall into that group, but I suggest those of us posting in this forum are not representative.

Anyone looked for non vax stats in countries without any requirement for exemptions? I mean the main reasons people don't vax in those countries....? Would be interesting to look at.

serenbat 03-11-2014 04:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I don't get why sharing information is bad. What are you afraid of?
 

Actually it has nothing to do with be afraid-IMO

 

You may not understand why but a study like this shows it's not effective and actually has a detrimental effect.

 

Are you saying this study is not accurate?  1.700 not enough?


kathymuggle 03-11-2014 07:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I don't get why sharing information is bad. What are you afraid of?
 

There is no fear. If I was forced to watch a video to get an exemption, I would watch the video.  I would be annoyed about the waste of my time, taxpayer dollars, and the assumption I needed advising (when all indicators show most non-vax to be well educated in general).

 

 Sharing information is good.  Forcing it down someone's throat (particularly when they are not asking you for anything)  is bad. 


rachelsmama 03-11-2014 07:07 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I don't get why sharing information is bad. What are you afraid of?

 

I agree with this statement, but I've noticed that many people have a double standard, and that some people try to defend propaganda by saying things like this.


kathymuggle 03-11-2014 07:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 

I agree with this statement, but I've noticed that many people have a double standard, and that some people try to defend propaganda by saying things like this.

Goodness, yes.

 

There are a number of hard-core pro-vax sites that would like to quiet vaccine critical voices.

 

If you google "false balance and vaccines"  you will get a slew of articles that essentially state that mainstream media should only print articles that are pro- vaccines.  Vaccine criticism should not be given a voice.  


sassyfirechick 03-11-2014 06:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 Sharing information is good.  Forcing it down someone's throat (particularly when they are not asking you for anything)  is bad.

That right there....there's sharing, there's lecturing, and there's outright denying another persons opinions and decisions because you believe your own is superior.


teacozy 03-14-2014 07:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I don't get why sharing information is bad. What are you afraid of?
 

 

Good question.  Seems like people from the NV side are all for informed consent, up until it comes time for people to hear information they don't like.  Isn't that what informed consent is though? Hearing both sides?  


Turquesa 03-14-2014 08:05 AM

Tea, just because somebody rejects a set of arguments doesn't mean they haven't heard them. All of the time. Ad nauseum.

Maybe they're just poor arguments. shrug.gif

And since when was a doctor's exam room the only place to get pro-vax compliance information? These laws rest on the arrogant assumption that exempting parents can't POSSIBLY have heard the infinite wisdom of the pro-compliance side. If they had, surely they would have obeyed orders by now. eyesroll.gif

sassyfirechick 03-14-2014 08:23 AM

I have no problem hearing from both sides.  I have a HUGE problem when one side bashes the other consistently and relentlessly as a bunch of quacks.  I have a huge problem when that side uses fear to force and opinion on people...that's not exactly sharing and playing nice, it's manipulative.   Make me want to avoid that side more than listen to it.


teacozy 03-14-2014 08:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Tea, just because somebody rejects a set of arguments doesn't mean they haven't heard them. All of the time. Ad nauseum.

Maybe they're just poor arguments. shrug.gif

And since when was a doctor's exam room the only place to get pro-vax compliance information? These laws rest on the arrogant assumption that exempting parents can't POSSIBLY have heard the infinite wisdom of the pro-compliance side. If they had, surely they would have obeyed orders by now. eyesroll.gif

 

And just because you feel like you're informed about the "pro vaccine" side doesn't mean all or most NVers are.  

 

For example, not long ago someone linked a Thinking Moms revolution post on facebook and after reading parts of it I read some of the comments and nearly spit my coffee out. 

 

This is what was said, in part, by a "Thinking" mom: 

 

"We never had any reduction of *any* disease. All we had is a reduction in particular labels. Smallpox was replaced with fatal chicken pox, polio was replaced with other forms of acute flaccid paralysis and diphtheria was replaced with strep throat. Further, measles was replaced with fifth disease, pertussis with RSV/croup; hepatitis was replaced with other types of hepatitis, and so on and so on. "

 

Even a Thinking mom blogger responded and said  (most) of it was complete nonsense. "This is not factually true. There ARE far fewer cases of measles and chicken pox today than there were when I was a child. That is a stone-cold fact. Measles and chicken pox were RAMPANT in the early 60s. Almost everyone I knew had the chicken pox. I know very few people who have children today who have had the chicken pox, and almost all of them were not vaccinated. I don’t know ANYONE whose child has had measles. These are not things that could be hidden. Measles is NOT fifth disease. Diphtheria is NOT strep throat. Polio did get redefined so that many cases of polio were no longer counted as polio, but the news of five cases of paralysis in California would not be news if children were still being paralyzed at the rates they were in the 40s and 50s." 

 

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaccines-caused-sons-autism/#comments

 

So yes, there A LOT of people making the decision not to vaccinate based on completely nonsensical information they likely read on whale or natural news. 


Turquesa 03-14-2014 08:29 AM

And do you have evidence that having the state drag these people kicking and screaming into exam rooms is going to change their minds?

Turquesa 03-14-2014 08:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post

I have no problem hearing from both sides.  I have a HUGE problem when one side bashes the other consistently and relentlessly as a bunch of quacks.  I have a huge problem when that side uses fear to force and opinion on people...that's not exactly sharing and playing nice, it's manipulative.   Make me want to avoid that side more than listen to it.

In my mind, that's precisely what the study in the OP shows. I've heard some interesting spins on the results. Corporate media is heaving a sigh: "Well, apparently some parents are too anti-science to handle the Truth."

Meanwhile, the study's authors are claiming that when they tell us the Truth, we're so devastated by the defeat that we reject the information just to protect our fragile self-esteems. eyesroll.gif (No, really. See my latest post in the SD forum).

But both parties are blame-shifting. What if the message just . . . sucks? What if it's so hyperbolic, so forceful, so emotionally manipulative, so black-and-white, so zealously religious, so dogmatic and absolutist, so intellectually vacuous that parents are more likely to question it?

rachelsmama 03-14-2014 08:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Good question.  Seems like people from the NV side are all for informed consent, up until it comes time for people to hear information they don't like.  Isn't that what informed consent is though? Hearing both sides?  

A lot of the "information" that gets the most vehemently rejected is highly biased propaganda that's designed to try to change people's minds, not simply inform them.  For example, when a doctor says "But your child could diiiiieeeeee if they don't get the chickenpox vaccine!", that's propaganda, and rejecting that presentation is not the same as rejecting the fact that there's a small chance of death from chickenpox.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

And just because you feel like you're informed about the "pro vaccine" side doesn't mean all or most NVers are.  

 

You seem highly concerned about the small number of parents who don't vaccinate whose reasons are somewhat questionable; how do you feel about the parents who vaccinate on schedule but have no idea about potential side-effects, the limitations of the vaccines, or even what vaccines their children receive?  Do you ever worry about the risks that those children face simply because of their parents' lack of information? 


teacozy 03-14-2014 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

 

You seem highly concerned about the small number of parents who don't vaccinate whose reasons are somewhat questionable; how do you feel about the parents who vaccinate on schedule but have no idea about potential side-effects, the limitations of the vaccines, or even what vaccines their children receive?  Do you ever worry about the risks that those children face simply because of their parents' lack of information? 

 

Informed consent goes both ways.  I absolutely think a parent should know the risks of every vaccine before consenting to them.  Thats why there is a law that states that doctors must provide the parent with the Vaccine Information Sheet.   It goes through the risks of each vaccine.   I would absolutely be against any kind of legislation that tried to get rid of that requirement. 

 

"You seem highly concerned about the small number of parents who don't vaccinate whose reasons are somewhat questionable." 

 

I suppose "small number" is subjective but even on these forums I see people outright deny that the MMR works, or that the Polio vaccine works.  I absolutely do not think that a person who honestly believes that those vaccines are worthless and don't work are making an informed decision. 

 

I have a lot more respect (for lack of a better word) for the members who at least concede that vaccines work, that it's not just correlation that the US went from millions of cases of measles per year to generally less than a hundred.   

 

A person can recognize that vaccines work while still arguing that they don't think they're worth it, or that the risks are too high. I may disagree with you, but I at least think you're weighing the benefits and risks.  But to just outright deny that they do anything is ridiculous and not informed.  Because of course if vaccines were nothing more than a placebo then ANY risk, even if it was 1 in 10 million, would be too high. 


rachelsmama 03-14-2014 01:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Informed consent goes both ways.  I absolutely think a parent should know the risks of every vaccine before consenting to them.  Thats why there is a law that states that doctors must provide the parent with the Vaccine Information Sheet.   It goes through the risks of each vaccine.   I would absolutely be against any kind of legislation that tried to get rid of that requirement. 


I know those info sheets have been discussed before, and if I'm remembering correctly, they aren't always given out, when they are given out it's often after the vaccines have already been administered, and they are often short on real information.  Is there anybody monitoring whether or not doctors are handling the VIS properly?   I don't know what the laws about info sheets are here, but I do know I've met an awful lot of parents who aren't informed about what their kids have been given, and info sheets are hit-and-miss depending on where you get the vaccines.

 

What I'm getting at is that there's a lot of media discussion about making sure that anybody who's not vaccinating has all the information, but the amount of coverage about uninformed vaccinators is disproportionately small, even though the percentage of the population is probably a whole lot larger. 


teacozy 03-14-2014 01:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 


I know those info sheets have been discussed before, and if I'm remembering correctly, they aren't always given out, when they are given out it's often after the vaccines have already been administered, and they are often short on real information.  Is there anybody monitoring whether or not doctors are handling the VIS properly?   I don't know what the laws about info sheets are here, but I do know I've met an awful lot of parents who aren't informed about what their kids have been given, and info sheets are hit-and-miss depending on where you get the vaccines.

 

What I'm getting at is that there's a lot of media discussion about making sure that anybody who's not vaccinating has all the information, but the amount of coverage about uninformed vaccinators is disproportionately small, even though the percentage of the population is probably a whole lot larger. 

 

They are supposed to ALWAYS be given out, *before* the vaccines.   It's required by law in the US and any doctor that fails to do so should be reported.  Seriously. 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-26

 

"Such materials shall be provided prior to the administration of such vaccine."


Mirzam 03-14-2014 01:26 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

Informed consent goes both ways.  I absolutely think a parent should know the risks of every vaccine before consenting to them.  Thats why there is a law that states that doctors must provide the parent with the Vaccine Information Sheet.   It goes through the risks of each vaccine.   I would absolutely be against any kind of legislation that tried to get rid of that requirement. 

 

 

NB: I clicked like by mistake I meant to hit quote, so no I did not like the above.

 

The VIS is not informed consent, it far from gives a parent all the information they need to make a truly informed decision on vaccines. It is entirely one-sided, dumbed down and pro-vaccine, the risks are made light of and are far from comprehensive. Any legislation requiring parental "education" should require that parents are given the manufacturers product insert to examine prior to vaccination rather than the VIS. 


rachelsmama 03-14-2014 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

They are supposed to ALWAYS be given out, *before* the vaccines.   It's required by law in the US and any doctor that fails to do so should be reported.  Seriously. 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-26

 

"Such materials shall be provided prior to the administration of such vaccine."


And while there's an increasing amount of energy being put into tracking whether or not people are vaccinated, etc.... is there any energy at all going into monitoring whether doctors are complying with the laws regarding VIS?   The double standard implies a lot about priorities.


serenbat 03-14-2014 03:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 


I know those info sheets have been discussed before, and if I'm remembering correctly, they aren't always given out, when they are given out it's often after the vaccines have already been administered, and they are often short on real information.  Is there anybody monitoring whether or not doctors are handling the VIS properly?   I don't know what the laws about info sheets are here, but I do know I've met an awful lot of parents who aren't informed about what their kids have been given, and info sheets are hit-and-miss depending on where you get the vaccines.

 

What I'm getting at is that there's a lot of media discussion about making sure that anybody who's not vaccinating has all the information, but the amount of coverage about uninformed vaccinators is disproportionately small, even though the percentage of the population is probably a whole lot larger. 

 

You are correct, and it's up to each state to make their own rules - some states are only verbal info too - try that when you need to visit with more than one child, one is crying and all you want to do it get out of there!

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/index.html

There is no Federal requirement for informed consent relating to immunization. For state and local regulations, check with your local or state health department.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

They are supposed to ALWAYS be given out, *before* the vaccines.   It's required by law in the US and any doctor that fails to do so should be reported.  Seriously. 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-26

 

"Such materials shall be provided prior to the administration of such vaccine."


kathymuggle 03-14-2014 06:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Good question.  Seems like people from the NV side are all for informed consent, up until it comes time for people to hear information they don't like.  Isn't that what informed consent is though? Hearing both sides?  

Informed consent is something HCP should provide before doing a procedure.  It is their responsibility.

 

Patients have the right to take informed consent as little or as far as they choose.  People can waive their rights.  

 

I have the right to receive as much information as I need before undergoing a procedure.  

 

I think almost all of us can think of a time when we did not bother to go over all the ins and outs of a procedure - we just got the basics and either let the doctor do it or declined.  

 

One may argue that a doctor might feel he has to go over xyz before performing a procedure - and I can understand that - but a non-vaxxer is not asking a doctor to do anything.  


kathymuggle 03-14-2014 06:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Informed consent goes both ways.  I absolutely think a parent should know the risks of every vaccine before consenting to them.  That's why there is a law that states that doctors must provide the parent with the Vaccine Information Sheet.   It goes through the risks of each vaccine.   I would absolutely be against any kind of legislation that tried to get rid of that requirement. 

 

If a VIS meets the requirement on the part of the doctor for "informed consent" then may I suggest they simply hand the form to all parents and be available for questions?  If the VIS is all a person who vaccinate needs, then why must a non-vaxxer sit through an hour long video or multiple discussions if they are not interested?


kathymuggle 03-14-2014 07:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

And just because you feel like you're informed about the "pro vaccine" side doesn't mean all or most NVers are.  

 

For example, not long ago someone linked a Thinking Moms revolution post on facebook and after reading parts of it I read some of the comments and nearly spit my coffee out. 

 

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaccines-caused-sons-autism/#comments

 

So yes, there A LOT of people making the decision not to vaccinate based on completely nonsensical information they likely read on whale or natural news. 

I am not sure where you are getting "A LOT" from.  I suspect it is an assumption.  From what I remember from a study I read (google-fu skills are failing me) selective/delayers rank as being the most knowledgeable (as defined by mainstream questionnaires) on vaccines, then non-vaxxers, while the vaccinate-on schedule were the least knowledgeable on vaccines.  
 

In an event, here is a moronic quote from  a pro-vaxxer  to counter your quote.  Neither prove anything about the knowledge level of specific groups. 

 

From cafemom:

http://www.cafemom.com/group/115189/forums/read/19731968/Whooping_Cough_Is_Making_a_Comeback_And_This_New_Vaccine_Resistant_Strain_Won_t_Help?next=1

 

"well ofcoarse theres a new strain  <whooping cough>, the kids who werent vaccinated , had it mix with some other virus and made it worse, now its air borne and going to affect the rest of us until the drs come up with the new vaccine."  


teacozy 03-15-2014 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

Patients have the right to take informed consent as little or as far as they choose.  People can waive their rights.  

 

I have the right to receive as much information as I need before undergoing a procedure.  

 

I think almost all of us can think of a time when we did not bother to go over all the ins and outs of a procedure - we just got the basics and either let the doctor do it or declined.  

 

One may argue that a doctor might feel he has to go over xyz before performing a procedure - and I can understand that - but a non-vaxxer is not asking a doctor to do anything.  

 

The difference is that you are making a decision for another person (a child) and that decision potentially affects and puts other people at risk.   The burden is higher in a case like this.  We aren't talking about tylenol for a low grade fever, we are talking about potentially fatal diseases. 

 

"One may argue that a doctor might feel he has to go over xyz before performing a procedure - and I can understand that - but a non-vaxxer is not asking a doctor to do anything. "

 

But that's kind of the point isn't it?  You aren't doing anything which is going against the recommendation of every medical organization in the world, against the overwhelming consensus of experts in immunology, epidemiology, and infectious diseases. 

 

It's kind of like the difference between taking a recommended antibiotic from a doctor and refusing that antibiotic.  Which one of those things is a doctor going to end up really trying to make sure you understand the risks and benefits of more thoroughly?  If you take their recommendation or decline their recommendation? 



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 7.14%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.