Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Study: "Pro-Vaccine" Messages Not Changing Minds Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
03-30-2014 09:37 AM
Turquesa " This study, I believe, was looking at parents who have chosen exemptions for whatever reason. And so far, targeted messaging doesn't appear to be effective. I wonder how necessary it is. Even aside from the rights of parents or individuals not to vaccinate... I think there is always going to be a small sub-population that chooses not to vaccinate. It might be a waste of time and resources. OTOH, I would prefer not to see vaccination rates decline as they did in the UK. So, I don't know."

To continue on my last thought, I don't know if scientists themselves are always to blame for failure to communicate. Journalists, (including self-ascribed "science writers") play a profound role in all of this. Andrew Wakefield, whose research I personally reject, wrote an observational paper with an itsy-bitsy sample size and concluded that it might be worth investigating the trivalent MMR vaccine for any link to gut disorders and possibly consider offering the vaccines monovalently. What did the public hear? "OMG!!! VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM!!!!"

Now to see a re-play of the scenario you describe above, where there are panicky news reports and vaccine rates dipping as they did in the U.K., we would need to see another journal article that hints at the possibility of a flaw or danger in a vaccine. If the article turns out to be a fraud, you'll see massive attempts at damage control. If the article turns out to be true, then we'd need to be intellectually honest and consider that maybe the risk of a vaccine in question outweighs its benefits. I honestly don't see another Wakefield-esque scenario emerging. Either way, as I keep saying, public faith, (Faith. There's that word again) in vaccine programs remains pretty high, despite all of the alarmists' claims.
03-30-2014 09:25 AM
Turquesa If it doesn't compromise your anonymity and you don't mind sharing, what field of science are you in, CWill? I agree that politics really muddies the waters. To some degree, I suspect that there are both laypeople and scientists who expect Science to whisper sweet nothings into their ears and tell them what they want to hear. It would be a lie to say that there's no corruption in science.

You were wondering why scientists "suck" at conveying their findings. This article was going around FB a few months ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/21/faith-in-scientists_n_4481487.html

The take-away message that I hear from commenters is that American laypeople are just a bunch of anti-science rednecks who wouldn't know the Truth if it bit them in the buttcheeks.

But take a closer look at the article. The first part that amuses me is the headline. Americans have little FAITH in scientists and science journalists? I thought that science was a matter of facts, not faith. But I digress.

Let me speak as a non-scientist: No scientist or science journalist, (and, believe me, anybody can call him/herself a "science writer") is entitled to my FAITH. They need to present solidly designed independent studies and put them out there for public scrutiny. That second part can get dicey because in the most heated issues, (global warming, GMOs, etc.) everybody accuses everybody of "junk science."

But is it fair to say that there is a level of arrogance circulating in science circles? The message I hear is often, "We get it. You don't. So just leave the thinking to us and take our word at face value." But in the Information Age, that's an outrageous, unreasonable, and even impossible demand.

I'm not at all worried about the public not having *faith* in people like scientists and science journalists. It doesn't mean that they don't value SCIENCE itself. But if restoring trust is the issue, I see two solutions. First, the fight for scientific literacy should be ongoing. Second, nobody is going to trust scientists until scientists themselves take action to *restore* that trust.

I have seen a level of denialism toward competing interests in scientific research, both on and off MDC, that is nothing short of appalling. I have seen attempts to minimize the issue, deny the problem, and even mock the critics by denouncing them as "conspiracy theorists." (Just one example: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2912 ) But why not admit that this is a problem and work to restore ethics and INTEGRITY to science?? If you're wondering why scientists "suck" at public communications, this may be your answer.
03-24-2014 10:11 AM
cwill
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
"By all means choose to vaccinate, but don't do it because you think science is infallible or because you think pharmaceutical companies are your friends. Don't be a sheeple. " 

 

I personally think that's a totally valid statement to make, apart from the sheeple bit. 

 

I might be going way too far back to the OP, but I am interested in how science is disseminated to laypeople.  Scientists suck at it. We know we suck at it. And it's tricky when you have policy goals - like making laws regarding climate change or to convince people to vaccinate. Because on the one hand, science (well, biology) is messy and we readily admit that. We are always picking apart our own studies, trying to control for variation. We acknowledge limitations of study design. We have to do this in order to do strong science.

 

But that makes for one crummy public message, doesn't it? As far as a PR campaign goes, you cannot possibly get into the nitty gritty because most people won't understand and because 99.9% don't have the time to invest in reading all of the relevant research. When you start talking about limitations or uncertainty, laypeople think that means your research is totally worthless. So public health officials come up generalized simple messages and sound bytes. And I would argue that overall, the simple messages are effective. Not scientific, but effective. This is the nature of marketing right? In the study linked in the OP, parents shown a story about a child suffering from measles came away thinking that vaccines have serious side effects. Whether or not you think that's true based on your own reading, it makes no sense that you would see a child with measles and think 'vaccines aren't safe". But most people did. Our brains are weird. And if your goal is to get people to vaccinate, you have to appeal to their brains.

 

This study, I believe, was looking at parents who have chosen exemptions for whatever reason. And so far, targeted messaging doesn't appear to be effective. I wonder how necessary it is. Even aside from the rights of parents or individuals not to vaccinate... I think there is always going to be a small sub-population that chooses not to vaccinate. It might be a waste of time and resources. OTOH, I would prefer not to see vaccination rates decline as they did in the UK. So, I don't know.

03-24-2014 10:09 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


By all means choose not to vaccinate, but don't do it for pseudoscientific reasons or because you think mainstream scientists are all lying/stupid or involved in a mass conspiracy.

 

Sigh.


And so many of us have posted, so many times, that we don't believe that the vast majority of mainstream scientists are lying, and we don't believe that they are involved in a mass conspiracy.

 

We believe that they have gotten it wrong, the way they got it wrong about cigarettes, about heroin (sold over-the-counter by Bayer in the US from 1895-1924), about cocaine (sold by Parke-Davis starting in 1885), about DDT, about breastfeeding vs formula-feeding, about sugar, about saccharine, about Vioxx, about Thalidomide, about treating every fussy baby with possible ear infections with antibiotics, about treating every sniffle and cough with antibiotics, etc.

 

We don't choose not to vaccinate for pseudoscientific reasons.  Many of us have children who have had severe adverse vaccine reactions that were documented and reported by mainstream medical doctors.  Perhaps we have delved more deeply into the available studies than you have; we have found mainstream, peer-reviewed and published science documenting similar cases, and showing the mechanism of vaccine injury.

 

Our friends, colleagues, and families may not have done the research we have done, but they have seen the results of vaccine injury with their own eyes.  Our children's teachers have seen with THEIR own eyes the enormous improvements the children made when their vaccine injuries were finally acknowledged and appropriately treated.  After witnessing such events, most of them either delay or turn down vaccines for their own children--as do more and more doctors.  Are you implying that their reasons for doing so are "pseudoscientific" or otherwise invalid?

 

I do wish you would stop implying that the perspective of those who question/criticize vaccine efficacy and safety is invalid.  I wouldn't wish anyone, even a passionate pro-vaxer, to go through the anguish of watching your child have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine.  But I sadly conclude that that is the only way that most people ever "get it."

03-24-2014 06:14 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Kathymuggle - that's basically the entire process of science your describing (disagreeing with bits of it, progressing slowly to a closer description of the truth).

Emotions run high in this debate on both sides. I certainly have seen (and recently) opinions that vaccinators are permanently damaging their children.

But I also agree with personal freedom, and I don't like the American method of requiring records/exemptions for school entry. It's only the misinformation and scare tactics which annoy me.

By all means choose not to vaccinate, but don't do it for pseudoscientific reasons or because you think mainstream scientists are all lying/stupid or involved in a mass conspiracy.

PSM….are you saying I did not vaccinate for pseudoscientific reasons or because I am a conspiracy theorist?  It certainly sounds that way.  Please clarify.

 

Even if you are not saying that, I find your post baitish.  Consider what it would sound like, if I posted :

 

"By all means choose to vaccinate, but don't do it because you think science is infallible or because you think pharmaceutical companies are your friends. Don't be a sheeple. " 

03-24-2014 05:07 AM
kathymuggle
nm
03-24-2014 04:52 AM
rachelsmama
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Kathymuggle - that's basically the entire process of science your describing (disagreeing with bits of it, progressing slowly to a closer description of the truth).

Emotions run high in this debate on both sides. I certainly have seen (and recently) opinions that vaccinators are permanently damaging their children.

But I also agree with personal freedom, and I don't like the American method of requiring records/exemptions for school entry. It's only the misinformation and scare tactics which annoy me.

By all means choose not to vaccinate, but don't do it for pseudoscientific reasons or because you think mainstream scientists are all lying/stupid or involved in a mass conspiracy.

I like this post a lot.  The funny/sad part of the big nasty "debate" is just how much both "sides" have in common.  The bolded sentiments are pretty much exactly how I feel, except that I tend to direct them at the people posting pro-vax propaganda memes all over facebook.

 

editing for clarification:  I interpreted that last line to mean that you do respect those of us who question vaccines (or at least the current vaccination strategies) based on the science.

03-23-2014 11:42 PM
prosciencemum Kathymuggle - that's basically the entire process of science your describing (disagreeing with bits of it, progressing slowly to a closer description of the truth).

Emotions run high in this debate on both sides. I certainly have seen (and recently) opinions that vaccinators are permanently damaging their children.

But I also agree with personal freedom, and I don't like the American method of requiring records/exemptions for school entry. It's only the misinformation and scare tactics which annoy me.

By all means choose not to vaccinate, but don't do it for pseudoscientific reasons or because you think mainstream scientists are all lying/stupid or involved in a mass conspiracy.
03-23-2014 02:36 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Thank you for summing that up so nicely. 

 

I thought this quote from Robert Kennedy Jr. (who is an extremely vocal anti-vaccine critic) was both fitting and ironic.  About climate change he says: 

 

“Ninety-eight percent of the research climatologists in the world say that global warming is real, that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. There are 2 percent who disagree with that. I have a choice of believing the 98 percent or the 2 percent.”

 

I like what Steven Novella says about that quote: 

 

"That is a basic statement of acceptance of the scientific consensus. But Robert Kennedy is not always a fan of the scientific consensus – for example he rejects the scientific consensus on vaccines, choosing to believe that the consensus is a deliberate fraud (exactly what global warming dissidents say about the climate change consensus). This makes Robert Kennedy a hypocrite – he accepts the scientific consensus and cites its authority when it suits his politics, and then blithely rejects it  when it is inconvenient to his politics." 

WT???

 

One can think science got it right in one area, and wrong in another.  

03-23-2014 01:37 PM
sassyfirechick
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post
 

PS  I am also one of those people who are dismayed that the rights of the many are curtailed to impact the few.  Privacy laws being eroded to catch criminals.  Authoritarian information tactics to get a handful of people to vaccinate.  That's screwed up.  There as to be another way.

Thank you :D  I Don't vaccinate my child but I could care less if that is what someone truly wants for themselves or their own family - to each his own!  So I'm certainly not anti-vax, but I get incredibly angry and irritated that others feel the need to try and regulate me and my decisions.  If my rights are equal to and just as important as someone else who makes different decisions, then that's clearly not what is happening here.....it's definitely a you are free to make decisions - as long as we make them for you.  Pretty sure that's not quite the rights that my family fought for......

 

I'll say that it's been my experience that those who do select/delay are far more open to conversations about not vaxxing and can certainly understand the reasoning behind that decision and there's less hostility about personal decisions.  Someone vehemently pro-vax on the other hand is more likely to argue and spew that hatred over personal decisions that truly have zero impact on them.  I just don't get it.  I would NEVER tell someone who vaxxes that their child could DIE of a vaccine reaction or suffer major lifelong consequences as a result of unknown chemical interactions.  Yet how many times has someone come on here (or anywhere) and started spouting off how the unvaccinated do nothing but carry and spread disease (half of which they mention aren't even vaccine preventable) and that kids who are un-vaxxed will die and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.....I mean talk about feeling high and mighty!  This huge divide does nothing to help anyone and the govt agencies are front and center stoking the fire.

03-23-2014 11:50 AM
SweetSilver

PS  I am also one of those people who are dismayed that the rights of the many are curtailed to impact the few.  Privacy laws being eroded to catch criminals.  Authoritarian information tactics to get a handful of people to vaccinate.  That's screwed up.  There as to be another way.

03-23-2014 11:39 AM
SweetSilver

Well, coming at it from a sel/del standpoint and not anti-vax, what I see is a concerning downplaying of risks, and almost negligent refusal to publicly admit that vaccinations are not always working as planned.  Even when the Skagit county CDC stated that the recent whooping cough epidemic there was *not* caused by the unvaccinated, it seemed like a blip in between government ad campaigns for everyone to get vaccinated.  The effort that seems to be aimed at saying "vaccines are perfect and anyone questioning that is an irresponsible lunatic" is frankly disturbing.  The shut-down of all divergent opinions is so strong, it looks like the givernment IS trying hard to cover up any truth, especially when they use strong-arm "informational" tactics like this.

 

I have no problem with vaccinations in general.  I see some difficulties.  I am no expert, but what I see is the same people that tell me Roundup is safe also say vaccines are safe, END OF STORY, and it makes me irritated.  WTF??  In my more skeptical moments, I feel like this is the same reasoning that held back voting for women and blacks, the belief that these people were too emotional or uninformed to vote.  But I think that is my own brain getting angry.  It really isn't the same thing, not when I think about it cooly and rationally.  It definitely reminds me of the emotional abortion debates and the bedsharing ad campaigns.

 

But I am one of those people that feels like backlashing against these strong-arm techniques.  The more I see this bullshit, the more I am pushed to consorting with people who truly are anti-vaccine, the thoughtful ones anyway.  I start sympathizing with them more and more.  And that's not how I like to feel.  I ned to keep my head about things, but I am surrounded on both sides by conspiracy theorists and government who confuses their authoritarianism with altruism.  Pisses me off.

03-23-2014 10:56 AM
Mirzam

Then there is Gandhi ~

 

03-23-2014 10:48 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

The whole point of this thread is that it's understood there are people who will never be convinced.

Nevertheless vaccines have been found time and time again by the vast majority of scientists and experts to be very safe and to have efficacy (of varying degrees depending on which vaccines you're talking about it). Not very snappy on a poster, but "Vaccines are safe and effective" does sum it up.

It's not just teacozy's argument, it's the argument made by basically everyone with the right expertise to make it (and now someone will throw out a handful of MDs or scientists with other opinions - it's a big world and the internet is an amazing tool to connect minority groups and opinions).

 

Thank you for summing that up so nicely. 

 

I thought this quote from Robert Kennedy Jr. (who is an extremely vocal anti-vaccine critic) was both fitting and ironic.  About climate change he says: 

 

“Ninety-eight percent of the research climatologists in the world say that global warming is real, that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. There are 2 percent who disagree with that. I have a choice of believing the 98 percent or the 2 percent.”

 

I like what Steven Novella says about that quote: 

 

"That is a basic statement of acceptance of the scientific consensus. But Robert Kennedy is not always a fan of the scientific consensus – for example he rejects the scientific consensus on vaccines, choosing to believe that the consensus is a deliberate fraud (exactly what global warming dissidents say about the climate change consensus). This makes Robert Kennedy a hypocrite – he accepts the scientific consensus and cites its authority when it suits his politics, and then blithely rejects it  when it is inconvenient to his politics." 

03-23-2014 12:31 AM
prosciencemum The whole point of this thread is that it's understood there are people who will never be convinced.

Nevertheless vaccines have been found time and time again by the vast majority of scientists and experts to be very safe and to have efficacy (of varying degrees depending on which vaccines you're talking about it). Not very snappy on a poster, but "Vaccines are safe and effective" does sum it up.

It's not just teacozy's argument, it's the argument made by basically everyone with the right expertise to make it (and now someone will throw out a handful of MDs or scientists with other opinions - it's a big world and the internet is an amazing tool to connect minority groups and opinions).
03-22-2014 06:57 PM
Taximom5

So, to sum up, tea's argument is that vaccines are "among the most safe and effective means of preventing disease and death," with the other safe and effective means of preventing disease and death being things like hand-washing, proper nutrition, and staying home when you're sick, none of which have any health risks at all, unlike vaccines.  

 

Oh, and other part of her argument is that the consensus at the government agency (a government staffed by politicians whose campaigns were funded by the vaccine industry) which promotes the vaccine program is that we should buy the vaccines.  Because the vaccine industry says that they are safe and effective.

 

Nope.  I'm not convinced yet.

03-22-2014 12:49 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Don't have time to respond to everything, have some errands to run.

 

"Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere. 

 

Is the Institute of Medicine legitimate enough?  This is their consensus report on vaccines that says : 

 

Details

Activity: Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
Type: Consensus Report

 

"Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death. 

 

This report is the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date. The IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule.

 

Upon reviewing stakeholder concerns and scientific literature regarding the entire childhood immunization schedule, the IOM committee finds no evidence that the schedule is unsafe. The committee’s review did not reveal an evidence base suggesting that the U.S. childhood immunization schedule is linked to autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders.

 

In this most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date, the IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule, which should help to reassure a diverse group of stakeholders. Indeed, rather than exposing children to harm, following the complete childhood immunization schedule is strongly associated with reducing vaccine-preventable diseases." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

 



This is an example of consensus at a government agency, not the consensus among all scientists to which you were referring upthread.
03-22-2014 10:05 AM
Jennyanydots It strikes me that by teacosy's definition our kids are also "safe" from most vpds, as well, vaccine or no.
03-22-2014 09:29 AM
SweetSilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Medical Definition of SAFE

: not causing harm or injury; especially: having a low incidence of adverse reactions and significant side effects when adequate instructions for use are given and having a low potential for harm under conditions of widespread availability <a list of drugs generally regarded as safe> "
 
 
Saying something is safe does not mean it is risk free.  A "safe" neighborhood does not mean there is zero risk that your house/car will get broken into.   The way you guys are trying to define safe is rather absurd.  Virtually nothing is safe when using that definition.  Getting out of bed in the morning isn't safe. Eating isn't safe. Walking around your house isn't safe. Taking a bath isn't safe. Cooking pasta isn't safe.

Amongst botanists, a blackberry is not a berry at all.  Neither is a blueberry, huckleberry or strawberry.  "Berry" has a very specific definition in scientific communities which is *not at all* how the general public uses the term.  

 

 
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

Well unless I'm cooking up some GMO's on my Teflon pan while walking on glass attempting to avoid falling objects.....pretty sure cooking and eating a meal within the confines of my home is pretty darn safe :wink  Vaccines on the other hand are much more of an unknown risk.

Roundup... BPA...

 

I am certainly not knocking the argument, but when we have such stellar examples as these as bastions of "GRAS", I think the scientific community and the government need to do more for their own credibility in this regard, and this forced consumption of the same information does nothing to advance the public trust.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

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. 

:Sheepish I will admit I am that person.  Not proud of it.  I have to watch myself, or I might just jump off a bridge because someone told me NOT to do it!

03-21-2014 06:43 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

"

safe

 adjective \ˈsāf\

: not able or likely to be hurt or harmed in any way : not in danger

: not able or likely to be lost, taken away, or given away

: not involving or likely to involve danger, harm, or loss

 

Interesting.  The defintion you picked could be either able or likely - you are taking it one way, I another.

 

I decided to google what other dictionaries said, to see if there was a consensus and found this:

 

http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+safe&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=pucsU9eUKOiM8Qfz1YHQCw

 

First defintion:

 protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed or lost.
 
 
 
 
2nd
 definition
 
 

secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk

 

 

So, there does not seem to be consensus on what the word safe means. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
03-21-2014 06:12 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Don't have time to respond to everything, have some errands to run.

 

"Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere. 

 

Is the Institute of Medicine legitimate enough?  This is their consensus report on vaccines that says : 

 

Details

Activity: Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
Type: Consensus Report

 

"Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death. 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

Bolding mine:

 

"are among the most safe and effective"  is not the same as safe and effective.

 

Flying is among the safest way to travel…that does not make it safe, just safe relative to other forms.

03-21-2014 03:35 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Darn quotes within quote (no bashing - I do it too - I need to stop).

My original is in black, Tea is in blue, my response is in red.

 

 

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

I am not sure that is the consensus. It might be a pithy little statement they use in a watered down way with the public, but I sincerely hope it is not their nuanced position.

 

That vaccines are safe and effective is the scientific consensus.  It's not a matter of opinion. 

 

Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere.   The first hit was CSI and the second was Skeptical Raptor.  There were a bunch of others who are very clearly pro-vax saying similar things, but I am not seeing WHO or Cochrane say such things.  Until I see others wise, I think it is a pithy statement pro-vaxxers like to throw around.    

 

The supreme court has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." 

 

"Unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term, and doesn't mean what NVers think it does.  Here's a link that goes into it more in depth. It's written by Dorit Reiss. http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

 

I went to the trouble of reading her article, even though I do not think she is credible.  Her argument is that some products are unavoidably or inherently unsafe, but that does not make them defective.  Umm…whatever.  I knew that.  No new information here.  

 

 

Ever read a vaccine insert?  All vaccines carries risks of severe and permanent damage - they are not safe.  You may argue they are "safer" than the disease (Not necessarily true IMHO, and very hard to measure) but that is not the same thing as safe.

 

The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.  Taking a bath is not dangerous just because there's a small risk you could pass out and drown.  Flying is extremely safe.  An analysis was done in the 90s that concluded that even if you flew every single day of your life, it would statistically take 19,000 years to get into a plane crash.  Indeed, flying in a plane is significantly safer than driving the same distance but also just safe in general. 

 

Both bathing and flying are not 100% safe.  They have risks (as does everything, one might argue) but I do them anyways because I:

 

-get something out of it (unlike a tetanus vaccine for example, where I fully expect to get nothing out of it due to the fact almost no one gets tetanus.  It is so incredibly rare)

-can quantify the risks, unlike vaccine risks which are very hard to quantify given industry funded studies, limitations with reporting issues, etc.  

 

 

Don't have time to respond to everything, have some errands to run.

 

"Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere. 

 

Is the Institute of Medicine legitimate enough?  This is their consensus report on vaccines that says : 

 

Details

Activity: Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
Type: Consensus Report

 

"Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death. 

 

This report is the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date. The IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule.

 

Upon reviewing stakeholder concerns and scientific literature regarding the entire childhood immunization schedule, the IOM committee finds no evidence that the schedule is unsafe. The committee’s review did not reveal an evidence base suggesting that the U.S. childhood immunization schedule is linked to autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders.

 

In this most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date, the IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule, which should help to reassure a diverse group of stakeholders. Indeed, rather than exposing children to harm, following the complete childhood immunization schedule is strongly associated with reducing vaccine-preventable diseases." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

03-21-2014 03:27 PM
sassyfirechick

Well unless I'm cooking up some GMO's on my Teflon pan while walking on glass attempting to avoid falling objects.....pretty sure cooking and eating a meal within the confines of my home is pretty darn safe :wink  Vaccines on the other hand are much more of an unknown risk.

03-21-2014 03:15 PM
kathymuggle

Darn quotes within quote (no bashing - I do it too - I need to stop).

My original is in black, Tea is in blue, my response is in red.

 

 

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

I am not sure that is the consensus. It might be a pithy little statement they use in a watered down way with the public, but I sincerely hope it is not their nuanced position.

 

That vaccines are safe and effective is the scientific consensus.  It's not a matter of opinion. 

 

Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere.   The first hit was CSI and the second was Skeptical Raptor.  There were a bunch of others who are very clearly pro-vax saying similar things, but I am not seeing WHO or Cochrane say such things.  Until I see others wise, I think it is a pithy statement pro-vaxxers like to throw around.    

 

The supreme court has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." 

 

"Unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term, and doesn't mean what NVers think it does.  Here's a link that goes into it more in depth. It's written by Dorit Reiss. http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

 

I went to the trouble of reading her article, even though I do not think she is credible.  Her argument is that some products are unavoidably or inherently unsafe, but that does not make them defective.  Umm…whatever.  I knew that.  No new information here.  

 

 

Ever read a vaccine insert?  All vaccines carries risks of severe and permanent damage - they are not safe.  You may argue they are "safer" than the disease (Not necessarily true IMHO, and very hard to measure) but that is not the same thing as safe.

 

The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.  Taking a bath is not dangerous just because there's a small risk you could pass out and drown.  Flying is extremely safe.  An analysis was done in the 90s that concluded that even if you flew every single day of your life, it would statistically take 19,000 years to get into a plane crash.  Indeed, flying in a plane is significantly safer than driving the same distance but also just safe in general. 

 

Both bathing and flying are not 100% safe.  They have risks (as does everything, one might argue) but I do them anyways because I:

 

-get something out of it (unlike a tetanus vaccine for example, where I fully expect to get nothing out of it due to the fact almost no one gets tetanus.  It is so incredibly rare)

-can quantify the risks, unlike vaccine risks which are very hard to quantify given industry funded studies, limitations with reporting issues, etc.  

 

03-21-2014 03:13 PM
Turquesa It looks the Colorado House turned a deaf ear to the research today. House members who voted for this bill, just like Voices for Vaccines and other leading bill supporters
, are apparently all about evidence . . . until they're not.

It would have been refreshing to see everybody take an intellectually honest look at this study and pull the plug on this legislation. But that would have required admitting they were wrong, wouldn't it? eyesroll.gif
03-21-2014 03:07 PM
Turquesa Excellent points, SFC. During the AIDS scare, we heard about safe sex. Then safe sex became "safer sex" when we realized that condoms,like vaccines, could fail to do their job. Maybe the vaccine program would look more trustworthy if the parties running it used language that was less absolutist and more realistic. Maybe saying "mostly safe and somewhat effective" doesn't sound as catchy, but nobody should mislead the public just to accomplish a pithy sound bite.
03-21-2014 03:00 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

This not a glass half full/glass half empty comparison - if it is not 100% safe, it's not safe.  You can call it mostly safe, essentially safe, largely, often, frequently, generally, and for the most part safe...but to claim they are SAFE is false.  To make the statement that something is "safe and effective" gives the implication that it's absolute, there are no risks.  

 

"

safe

 adjective \ˈsāf\

: not able or likely to be hurt or harmed in any way : not in danger

: not able or likely to be lost, taken away, or given away

: not involving or likely to involve danger, harm, or loss

 

Medical Definition of SAFE

: not causing harm or injury; especially: having a low incidence of adverse reactions and significant side effects when adequate instructions for use are given and having a low potential for harm under conditions of widespread availability <a list of drugs generally regarded as safe> "
 
 
Saying something is safe does not mean it is risk free.  A "safe" neighborhood does not mean there is zero risk that your house/car will get broken into.   The way you guys are trying to define safe is rather absurd.  Virtually nothing is safe when using that definition.  Getting out of bed in the morning isn't safe. Eating isn't safe. Walking around your house isn't safe. Taking a bath isn't safe. Cooking pasta isn't safe. 
 
 

 

 

03-21-2014 02:36 PM
sassyfirechick
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.

This not a glass half full/glass half empty comparison - if it is not 100% safe, it's not safe.  You can call it mostly safe, essentially safe, largely, often, frequently, generally, and for the most part safe...but to claim they are SAFE is false.  To make the statement that something is "safe and effective" gives the implication that it's absolute, there are no risks.  Even doctors in their pre-vaccination speech should not phrase it that "the vaccination is safe....BUT...there may be side effects" - it's contradictory and that statement alone should raise eyebrows!  Perhaps something along he lines of "this vaccination is generally seen as safe but there are some risks you should be aware of" would be a better approach, but it's not the one being taken by most doctors.

 

As for planes - everyone knows planes have a potential to crash (or now just disappear), many people are afraid to fly because it's a known fact and it doesn't matter how infrequently it occurs.  What the vaccine industry has done is painted a picture that there are no risks involved and many people truly believe no reaction has ever occurred at the mercy of a vaccination.  False image is the big issue here. Always trying to place blame elsewhere, never owning up to the responsibility they have to the entire population.  We debate social responsibility all the time - where does theirs fall?  How is it in any way socially responsible to lie to people or even to stretch the truth beyond its reality?

03-21-2014 01:57 PM
applejuice
Quote:
 The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.

Yes it does.  I guess it depends on your definition of unsafe.

It is tremendous leap of logic to compare getting vaccinated with flying in an airplane and taking a bath. There are viable alternatives to flying such as traveling by Amtrak, Greyhound, and car and no one will deny you a public education or deny you healthcare if you refuse to fly.

 

How about using the, "taking a risk every time you cross the street", analogy, as if you cross the street blindfolded? Vaccines are a potentially dangerous medical procedure that the medical profession has used the government to force on us peasants to maintain their profits. It is 18th century technology. There is nothing scientific about vaccination, and you cannot compare the risk of vaccination with anything else.

 

Ever hear of an implied warranty?  Vaccines do not even make the cut for that definition. Doctors imply that you will not get an infectious disease from getting a vaccine, yet  to be completely honest, every vaccine carries the risk of getting the disease you are vaccinated against in varying degrees in addition to getting chronic neurological and autoimmune conditions listed on the package insert. If you do have one of any of the thousands of possible side effects, you will be told -

 

1.) it is one in a million

2.) it is a co-incidence and has nothing to do with the vaccine

3.) it is psychosomantic - all in your head.

 

Yet across the globe, the same stories of side effects in every culture and language are told by patients and parents alike, so it is a conversion disorder or mass hysteria. I will take my chances with disease. I like the odds.

03-21-2014 01:05 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

I am not sure that is the consensus. It might be a pithy little statement they use in a watered down way with the public, but I sincerely hope it is not their nuanced position.

 

That vaccines are safe and effective is the scientific consensus.  It's not a matter of opinion. 

 

The supreme court has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." 

 

"Unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term, and doesn't mean what NVers think it does.  Here's a link that goes into it more in depth. It's written by Dorit Reiss. http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

 

Ever read a vaccine insert?  All vaccines carries risks of severe and permanent damage - they are not safe.  You may argue they are "safer" than the disease (Not necessarily true IMHO, and very hard to measure) but that is not the same thing as safe.

 

The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.  Taking a bath is not dangerous just because there's a small risk you could pass out and drown.  Flying is extremely safe.  An analysis was done in the 90s that concluded that even if you flew every single day of your life, it would statistically take 19,000 years to get into a plane crash.  Indeed, flying in a plane is significantly safer than driving the same distance but also just safe in general. 

 

 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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