Study Finds Vaccine Science Outreach Only Reinforced Myths (arstechnica.com) 465
Ars Technica reports on a study suggesting that "Striking at a myth with facts may only shore it up." Applehu Akbar writes:
Researchers at the University of Edinburgh studied public attitudes toward vaccination in a group whose opinions on the subject were polled before and after being shown three different kinds of explanatory material that used settled scientific facts about vaccines to explain the pro-vaccination side of the debate. Not only was the anti-vax cohort not convinced by any of the three campaigns, but their attitudes hardened when another poll was taken a week later.
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them, and as reinforcement for their already made-up minds on the subject. A previous study at Dartmouth College in 2014 used similar methodology and except for the 'hardening' effect elicited similar results. What's really scary about this is that while the Dartmouth subjects were taken from a large general population, the Edinburgh subjects were college students.
"The researchers speculate that the mere repetition of a myth during the process of debunking may be enough to entrench the myth in a believer's mind," writes Ars Technica, with one of the study's authors attributing this to the "illusory truth" effect.
"People tend to mistake repetition for truth."
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them, and as reinforcement for their already made-up minds on the subject. A previous study at Dartmouth College in 2014 used similar methodology and except for the 'hardening' effect elicited similar results. What's really scary about this is that while the Dartmouth subjects were taken from a large general population, the Edinburgh subjects were college students.
"The researchers speculate that the mere repetition of a myth during the process of debunking may be enough to entrench the myth in a believer's mind," writes Ars Technica, with one of the study's authors attributing this to the "illusory truth" effect.
"People tend to mistake repetition for truth."
This is (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Just outlaw the shit and be done with it. Simple as that. No need to be sad about it.
Nah, too many are far too entrenched in the judeo-christian belief that human life is sacred and children especially so for outlawing the shit to be feasible. So we're stuck with vaccines for now.
Re: This is (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
And the bad vaccines do less damage to the world than the lack of vaccines.
Re: (Score:3)
Person sees outreach campaign. Thinks, "there's a controversy?" Goes to look it up online. Sees that 99 out of the first 100 links are about vaccines being evil. Thinks, "I did my research, so my position against vaccination is sound!"
Re:This is (Score:4, Insightful)
"I've researched this" is the most common lie I hear from idiots.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, we got the problem with the dust tackled. And the threat of a Global Cooling has diminished. And yes, climate scientist were right then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it wasn't. Stop parroting memes based on FUD & bullshit.
Re:What's said is that scientists discredited scie (Score:4, Informative)
No, it wasn't. Stop parroting memes based on FUD & bullshit.
It may not have been a threat but it was certainly reported as being a threat (source: my memory of reading articles in serious papers and magazines - albeit I was doing that reading in the 80's).
However, it was not 'considered' a threat in the same way, or to the same degree, that AGW is 'considered' today.
Re:What's said is that scientists discredited scie (Score:5, Interesting)
The explanation given in your link (that the mass media was hyping global cooling, but climate scientists were publishing papers about global warming) doesn't really help. It just confirms the belief that the mass media will hype whatever they want rather than report accurately.
Re:What's said is that scientists discredited scie (Score:4, Informative)
A big mistake was making Al Gore the spokesman for climate change. That unnecessarily politicized the issue. Back in 2007, most Republican presidential candidates agreed that climate change was a serious issue that need to be addressed. That would never happen today. They don't want to be accused of "agreeing with Al Gore". For Republican politicians, it is a toxic issue, and has become an ideological litmus test, so facts and evidence no longer matter.
I call that BS. Way before Al Gore became the spokesman for climate change republicans were already steering away from it because... lobbying. This is an article from the Guardian from 1997, called "Who Killed Kyoto?": https://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/Guardian.html
So way before Al Gore ran for president, or he did his movie/documentary, or whatever...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If that's true, it's just more evidence that the right is a plague on this country, and planet.
So? Politics is a fact of life. Are you ok with destroying the planet as long as it is someone else's fault? Advocates of climate action knew (or should have known) that using a partisan politician as their champion would have a strong negative effect on building consensus and actually getting anything done.
Re:What's said is that scientists discredited scie (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as 1 in every 10,000 Toyotas, Mercedes Benzes or Teslas is going to be a lemon, 1 in 10,000 vaccinations can "go wrong". This is just the nature of such things.
That said, it really sucks if YOU buy that specific Toyota, Mercedes Benz or Tesla. And more so if YOUR kid is that ONE in 10,000. You can dump the car lemon, you have the child until they die. I personally know of one such extremely tragic case, so the pro-vaxxers should just shut up and admit to the reality of the stats.
Yes, the reality is every once in a while a child has a really bad reaction from a vaccine but the reality of the flip side is A LOT worse. I don't know how accurate your 1 in 10000 number is but that sounds like REALLY good odds to me. Before vaccines, 1 in 3 kids didn't make it to adulthood. Which odds would you rather have for your kid? A 1 in 10000 chance of dying from a vaccine or a 1 in 3 chance of dying from not getting a vaccine? Sure, because most people are vaccinated today, your odds are a little better than 1 in 3 even if you don't get a vaccine but it's still not as good as with getting the vaccine. When the odds of complications exceed the odds of catching the disease, that's when we discontinue the vaccine. That's why no one gets vaccinated for smallpox anymore except for a few soldiers going to a few high risk areas.
As a data person, the one thing I wish that the pro-vaccine people would start doing is listing the odds of complications of the vaccine right next to the estimated odds of catching the disease. I think some antivaxers might respond to that if you said "odds of bad reaction 1/10000, current odds of catching disease 1/1000, historical odds of catching the disease 1/100, odds of dying if you catch the disease 1/3"
Re: (Score:3)
Go for emotion:
This year, X children died from [preventable disease] (picture of a child in hospital, picture of people carrying a small coffin). If only they were vaccinated, they would still run round and play instead of laying dead. (interview with a crying parent who says he has killed his child by not vaccinating him). (interview with another crying parent who says that his child was unable to be vaccinated, contracted the disease from some intenionally-unvaccinated child and died).
Another way you coul
People insist on being stupid (Score:3)
Repetition does play a key-role, obviously, in enforcing lies. Just look at the mechanism of "prayer". This has been known for a very long time to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, then, scientists should just repeat their findings continuously without bringing up, or trying to directly counter, the nonsense. That is: just repeat what they understand again and again, especially on pop media.
The rational amongst us would then just have to read the actual papers to check assumptions and ask questions to refine the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Many Scientists have working ethics and that prevents manipulation of people. The competition usually does not. Just look at politics and religion.
Also, most Scientist are not in this for power or "winning". They know they have won. The other side is just too stupid to realize that.
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is tied to genetic brain structures, whether an individual is tied more to belief structures or more to understanding. Those tied strongly to beliefs, those thoughts structures that become locked in and are used to interact with their world, require quite the mental jolt to unlock that belief and replace it with a new better belief and in some cases given time, understanding. More mental effort is required to undo bad beliefs than was used to create them in the first place, just their genetic na
What evidence would change your mind? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the answer is, "Nothing." Then there is a big problem with the ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
This, unfortunately, is the standard case with the average person: They love their own misconception more than they want to actually understand what is going on. Probably because thy are scared to death.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always important to ask, "What evidence would change your mind?"
If the answer is, "Nothing." Then there is a big problem with the ideology.
That goes both ways.
What evidence would change your mind that effective and safe vaccines are a good thing in the long run?
What evidence would change your mind that children getting sick and dying is a bad thing?
A lie... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, the texts by Goebbels are still in use as teaching materials. A true master of his game, if an utterly amoral one.
Some people *need* to believe. (Score:2)
And I don't mean "I'll have another beer".
50 years ago, these people would have gone to church every Sunday, and had their children vaccinated in a Church-sponsored public health drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're making the same mistake as these researchers did: Placing all your opponents in one box, painting the most popular perceived belief of your opponent on the box, and attacking it.
That's a recipe for failure.
People are against vaccination for many different reasons, and by placing them with a group you hate, you're alienating them, and ensuring that they won't listen to you - you've already proven that you're not interested in facts, only in railroading.
The way to fight ignorance is by making
Re:Some people *need* to believe. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with any complex science is that understanding the mechanism behind it is complex and requires a significant amount of time and learning. It's easier to dismiss the science in these cases, particularly where someone is protected by herd immunity or the global changes in climate are just beginning to be noticeable at a broad level.
So the vaccine and climate science deniers take the easy path. Until the 10 years of record temperatures (each year sets the record for highest temperature) or a Measles outbreak kills someone they love.
The problem becomes when that person's denial directly threatens the lives of others. Unlike climate science, Vaccines and herd immunity provide protection for that 3-4% of people who cannot be vaccinated due to severe allergies. When that parent doesn't get their kid vaccinated and their kid is part of a pandemic that takes lives they should be prosecuted for negligent homicide. And yes I absolutely mean it, the people who's family members died in the Disneyland outbreak should be suing every single person that got the virus and wasn't vaccinated. They should take them for every dime they've got. Only when there are real penalties for those who choose to risk everyone else's lives by failing to get vaccines will people take vaccines seriously as a public health initiative.
You don't want to vaccinate? Go live somewhere where vaccines aren't given. Discover the panacea of living where you can die any time from completely preventable disease.
Re: (Score:2)
The way to fight ignorance is by making truth available. Not by telling people "you're brainwashed".
The study shows otherwise. It's almost impossible to overcome paranoia, especially with facts.
Critical thinking should be taught from the start (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's annoying when your kids question you all the time, and I feel for teachers who have to deal with everyone else's kids... but maybe we ought to stop with the Santa and Tooth Fairy and all the other 'cute and harmless' lies we tell kids.
Instead, we ought to be asking them what they think, and why, and then show them where they've made errors... so when they come up against something new, they have a fighting chance of figuring it out without someone holding their hand the whole time.
The best experience I ever had in school was a teacher mocking me for being afraid to be wrong, which is really the fork in the road where you either try to figure something out or just shut down and stick with your initial belief. We need more of that for our kids.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why isn't parent +5? (Score:3)
This is exactly right.
You could lay some of the blame at people's credulity and some kind of willful desire to believe alternative opinions because they're alternatives, but the bottom line is that the volume of manipulation and misinformation aimed at the public is relentless. Advertisements, sales and marketing, public relations, politicians -- the list of people with agendas and no regard for anything like the truth is endless.
And unfortunately this list includes traditional authority figures generally
Higher quality of truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it's annoying when your kids question you all the time, and I feel for teachers who have to deal with everyone else's kids... but maybe we ought to stop with the Santa and Tooth Fairy and all the other 'cute and harmless' lies we tell kids.
Instead, we ought to be asking them what they think, and why, and then show them where they've made errors... so when they come up against something new, they have a fighting chance of figuring it out without someone holding their hand the whole time.
The best experience I ever had in school was a teacher mocking me for being afraid to be wrong, which is really the fork in the road where you either try to figure something out or just shut down and stick with your initial belief. We need more of that for our kids.
Damore's essay was a fascinating peek into the sociology of lies.
The vast, vast majority of discussion about this(*) fell into two categories:
1) He said *that* shocking thing! (Countered with "He didn't say that")
2) He wrote prejudiced opinions not based in fact (Countered with "He cited references for each position he took")
Note the pattern here: the vast majority of discussion can be described as "make something up, then complain about it".
It's a complete surprise to me how *much* dishonesty arose over th
Re:Higher quality of truth (Score:4)
2) He wrote prejudiced opinions not based in fact (Countered with "He cited references for each position he took")
I read the thing and no he didn't. He cited references for some of the positions he took, and make a bunch of rather large extrapolations on the remainder. Not that citations are magic indicators of truth mind you.
He also had no references and didn't really make any reasonable attempt to actually support the central thesis, which was: "a. biological differences exist. b. differences exist in representation. c. a a causes b". Kind of a tricky one to argue since things have changes so much in the last 60 years or so, a far far faster timescale than could be explained by innate biological differences.
There are many much more detailed takedowns that have been written in the comments on this very site. The TL;DR of them is that the arguments are pretty much all ones which have been hashed over many times before (here included). Even the supposed "4 supporting scientists" can be more or less categorised about "ignored the content, complained about the comments", "broadly disagreed", "broadly agreed" and "nothing relevant or support either way, probably did not read", which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Oh and what's the thing with the fetishisation of a partly[*] finished PhD in systems biology being taken as an almost magical talisman of credibility on an unrelated area of biology by many posters here?
What we have had is that anyone pointing out that rather inconvenient fact is modded down, called a liar or accused of simply not reading it. So, rather than getting the "logical" discussion that the supporters claim to be so keen on, any dissent is met with a solid wall of screeching. I welcome downmods to prove me right on this one too!
[*] Nothing wrong with bailing, more people ought to, frankly.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not surprised he didn't have any references or make any attempt to support "a causes b" because that's not actually in Damore's document. Instead, he wrote (paraphrased) "a might be a contributing factor in b". And frankly, it's a stretch to assume that if a and b are both true (something yo
More complicated that ignorance or "psychology" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More complicated that ignorance or "psychology" (Score:4, Interesting)
No one makes money on Vaccines. They are subsidized by the government because drug companies can't produce them at a cost high enough to make a profit. Almost every vaccine sold is subsidized by the government. So your argument about profit kinds falls on it's face in such a scenario, after all the drug companies would much prefer to give you a pill to treat the symptoms of the disease than a shot that prevents it.
Why wouldn't you want to get a vaccine for a disease that could kill you? Even if it is rare in your current age group? I've yet to encounter a vaccine for something that doesn't kill people, and even the ones that rarely kill can often do significant damage even if you survive it. And most of the ones that are rare in the US are rare because people are vaccinated.
People just have to believe in something (Score:2)
It seems important to us as a species to have these settled world views, and I wonder why that's important.
Maybe banding together intellectually is an important feature in our tendency towards tribalism.
I don't get it (Score:2)
But then there are those people who don't think we went to the moon or even the crazier the earth is flat group in colorado. I'm a skeptical guy myself, but really vaccines? I guess when we have a big polio outbreak again and have kids in iron lungs the no-vax group will have to live with what they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just tell them it's a death star.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are just not too brite (Score:2)
Bright (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Language is a living thing, Mr. language-nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the problem right there. People who are competent in one field seem to think they competent in ALL fields. Nothing but pure arrogance.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Most people have no idea what Science can do and what it cannot do. Most people are unable to verify a fact more complicated than the existence of gravity (not talking actual numbers here, that most people cannot verify either, despite a stop-watch, a coin and some pretty basic math being all it takes). We tech-folks can do these things and the brighter ones of us have done them countless times and _know_ this approach works. But the average person is still using the old mechanisms of trust and beli
It's not just prejudice, I'm afraid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the long and body-strewn history of companies whose products have done enormous damage to large numbers of people.
The cigarette companies were denying that their cute little puff-sticks could cause cancer after a decade in which the causality was as firmly established as 1+1=2. The company that brought out thalidomide was still denying their product maimed unborn babies quite some time after the evidence was rolling in like a tsunami. Monsanto is even now busy suppressing evidence that their roundup product causes cancer.
I could cite a bunch of other instances, but it all comes down to the proven fact that corporations lie about the disasters they cause. They have every reason to: Cleaning up their mess or making amends to the victims will cost them money!
"...once a man gets a reputation as a liar, he might as well be struck dumb, for people do not listen to the wind." -- Robert A. Heinlein Citizen of the Galaxy
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. And now do the same for companies that produce food (and lump them all together as well, please, as you have done for your example). Should you stop to _eat_? Or should you start to find out what the actual details were, the players, the motivation, the Science?
Other issues. (Score:2)
Does this explain climate change denial and the election of Donald Trump?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the DNC and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the election of Donald Trump.
Sounds like a typical Trump and Trump supporter response - blame someone else. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the DNC and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the election of Donald Trump.
Sounds like a typical Trump and Trump supporter response - blame someone else. :-)
Actually, OP is right. DNC and Hillary Clinton did not marshal an effective campaign. Just like with Bush-Gore, another example where the electoral college overcame the popular vote, the DNC simply didn't do their job. W. should have taught them that simple-talk to simple people can win.
Trump supporters do indeed do that thing you say... "blame someone else," but in this case it's true. Against a guy like Trump, it was the DNC's race to lose, and they lost, not just to Trump but also a lot of House and Se
"People tend to mistake repetition for truth." (Score:2)
Consensus?
College students ain't what they used to be (Score:4, Interesting)
while the Dartmouth subjects were taken from a large general population, the Edinburgh subjects were college students.
Half the population of school-leavers now go to university in the UK. That is despite the fact that there are only sufficient "graduate level" jobs for a small fraction of them.
While the smartest graduates will get those jobs, the rest will be left with a crushingly large bill for their 3 more years of "education". You have to question just how clever those remaining graduates actually are.
So it comes as no surprise to learn that in this topic, university students can act just as dim as "ordinary" people - since most of them are exactly that.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you tell us bollocks like this? ... moron.
Studying in Scotland is free of cost. You are supposed to pay a 'honour fee' of 2000 pounds at the end of your studies.
There are no 'crushing large bills'
You're quite correct if the student is from Scotland or mainland EU.
You're completely wrong if you're talking about students from England, Northern Ireland, or Wales.
Given that the GP made no reference to the origin of the students, nor did the study specify that the students polled were exclusively 'native', your absolute statement, as fact, is unwarranted, and your use of the term 'moron' unpleasant and unjustified.
No problem. (Score:3)
Not only was the anti-vax cohort not convinced by any of the three campaigns, but their attitudes hardened when another poll was taken a week later.
I'm sure they'll perk up when they get their Darwin Awards [wikipedia.org].
in the words of Ron White (Score:2)
...stupid is forever.
Isn't it time to get serious . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
IF a child - who is NOT inoculated spreads a disease throughout his/her peer group, then it's high time to start prosecuting their parents for criminal mischief, at the very least, for allowing their child to be a carrier and disease vector simply because they refused to get that child vaccinated. Prosecution levels should even be allowed to go as high as "involuntary manslaughter", although, to me, it's NOT involuntary, it's premeditated, and should be criminalized to the full extent of those statutes.
Granted, this doesn't solve the problem resulting from that incident, but it WILL send a message to all the other parents that refuse to get their children vaccinated. Basically, if you allow your child to be a disease carrier, then YOU are responsible for all the harm caused to the other children who are harmed, disabled, crippled, or even killed - ALL THROUGH YOUR OWN NEGLIGENCE, or your BELIEF SYSTEM.
It makes no difference whether the issue is religious, personal, or just plain obstinate hard-headedness - YOU are the reason another child (or children) contracted a disease that could have been prevented with current vaccination regimes.
OK, so it's a sad and sometimes horrific (in case of permanent disability or death) situation, and there are many who would say that the parents (and child) have suffered enough - - - BUT the situation is SOLELY the responsibility of the child's parents / guardians to see that they are given the best medical care available - and that INCLUDES THE VACCINATIONS !
There is a serious line of demarcation between religion and scientific medical processes - and if the 'BELIEF' faction is allowed to put the health and lives of the other children at risk, then I BELIEVE they should be removed from the general population - - - as in ISOLATION WARDS / CAMPS.
Sorry if this sounds a bit fascist, or absolute socialistic, but there is just too much at stake to allow this type of behavior to endanger the health and well-being of the majority of the population - - - simply because someone says "My FAITH says I should NOT do this".
Take your FAITH and use it to cure the harm caused to the other children endangered by your actions (or INactions).
GET YOUR VACCINATIONS - REGULARLY and ON TIME - - - to protect the whole world.
cheers . . .
Re:Isn't it time to get serious . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, Zero__Kelvin, I surrender. I am not going to argue the validity of my comparisons any longer.
YOU, on the other hand, need to learn to focus on the reality of DELIBERATELY un-vaccinated children lowering the herd immunity and causing pain, suffering, and sometimes even death to those that did not have the opportunity to get their vaccinations - whether through recent immigration, economic issues, or simple ignorance.
I hope you never have to live through the grief I am still living with because of a simple MEASLES vaccination (MMR) that was late - and my daughter is deaf - FOR LIFE - because she caught the disease from a 'religious objector' (through no fault of his).
I will live with this issue for the rest of my life - because I was not timely in getting Deborah's MMR booster on time.
Get off your BS nit-picking and actually try to do something that HELPS the world - not just a piss-ant word-war on who is the most explicitly accurate in their analogies!
I've tried - really hard, considering, to be decent about this debate, but you are basically just a royal asshole.
I may get banned - but YOU will have to learn to live with your conscious - - - and just MIGHT eventually learn to be civil and courteous when posting.
How do you get people to google? (Score:2)
Natural selection is cruel. (Score:2)
n/t
suprised? (Score:2)
so the campaign was poorly done (Score:5, Interesting)
How valid is the study? (Score:2)
how would a war on stupidity (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:3)
...more evidence of evolution doesn't change the opinion of people who don't believe in evolution. More evidence of Holocaust doesn't change the opinion of Holocaust deniers. Some people refuse the axioms of the scientific method, they've decided what the truth is and will ignore or alter the facts to preserve their belief. To the paranoid, everybody is out to get you and only pretending otherwise. To the conspiracy theorists, if it contradicts the theory it's part of the conspiracy. Also if it's not working, you're not doing it right or it's not a proper implementation of your ideology or religion. And if nothing else works call it fake news and muddy the waters as best you can, if the signal doesn't support your case bury it in noise.
Going about it the wrong way (Score:3)
Instead of trying to teach these people a new way to think, reach these people via the way they already think. They're into the anti-vaxx stuff because:
Back before GPS navigation became ubiquitous, I read that men tend to navigate using road names, women tend to navigate using landmarks. So I started giving directions with both road names and landmarks. I got a lot of comments from people that they really liked my directions. There's no reason to limit ourselves to just one method of teaching people.
Re:The science is not settled (Score:5, Informative)
Nice lie you got there. The science has been settled about a century ago. Unfortunately, the vaccine against stupidity still eludes us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice lie you got there. The science has been settled about a century ago.
Thimerosol wasn't used in vaccines 100 years ago, so your claim is impossible.
To be clear I know that there is abundant evidence that Thimerosol, in the quantities used in vaccines, at least, does not cause autism or any other problem, and that even though vaccines aren't risk free, not vaccinating is vastly more risky. But to say that all possible concerns about modern vaccines were laid to rest 100 years ago is ridiculous. 100 years ago, we still thought smoking tobacco was fine, if not actually *good*
Re: (Score:2)
It would not be shocking to learn of newly-identified problems with vaccines, particularly in newer formulations. Though it would be shocking indeed to learn of problems worse than polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. because we know that without vaccines those will kill and maim large numbers of people every year.
The problem is that it's a kind of tragedy of the commons, it's pretty hard to create anything without any side effects to anyone. People can die from anaphylactic shock after a bee sting. So if everyone else around you are immunized you have a rather massive herd immunity which makes it unlikely that you will be infected. If you're the only anti-vaxxer you'll do great, you avoid the possible side effects and in all likelihood the disease itself. If a lot of people start believing it the herd immunity is go
Re: (Score:2)
It would not be shocking to learn of newly-identified problems with vaccines, particularly in newer formulations. Though it would be shocking indeed to learn of problems worse than polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. because we know that without vaccines those will kill and maim large numbers of people every year.
And that is just my point. It requires a really huge problem with a vaccine in order for it to be worse than what it cures. That means the main risk-management part of the science has been settled long ago. And it is the risk-management angle the anti-vaxxers are attacking. (Without understanding it...) Details may evolve, but they are, you know, details.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't personally verified relativity myself, but my GPS still works. Just like vaccination, it's been repeatedly tested and proved over decades by scientists and statisticians from countries all over the world, and peer-reviewed papers for each of these experiments are freely available to those who care to look.
I'd cite you some links, but that'd probably just strengthen your belief in the myth.
Re: (Score:3)
No, most of us rely on professional scientists to do studies and perform experiments. That's why we have more confidence in the results, rather than listening to theory and speculation from amateurs. It's no different than how we rely on professional engineers to build our bridges and skyscrapers, rather than try to build them ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
So you actually believe only Science that you have verified yourself? That is pretty stupid. Because it means you basically cannot belief anything scientific. Even only verifying basic math and very basic physics takes a lifetime. I take it you also verify every CPU down to the transistor-level before you use it? Oh, wait, you will have to verify transistors first. Pretty tricky and expensive for the ones used today.
The actually scientific approach is to build up a good body of basic knowledge, verify a ran
Re: (Score:3)
You most certainly can do experiments yourself to prove that vaccinations work (the current topic). The same primitive techniques that Louis Pasteur used didn't die with him.
Given your ignorance of stuff you should have learned in high school but didn't, perhaps it's a good thing that you're in the minority.
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, I hate the phrase "the science is settled", because it's utter nonsense. Science is never settled - that refutes the nature of the scientific method itself, in which everything is subject to questioning. History is replete with "common scientific knowledge" being not just modified, but occasionally completely overturned. Cosmology is filled with such examples, many of which are in the past century. The discovery of plate tectonics is another example. To think modern science is beyond su
Re:The science is not settled (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. And they work as advertised, which is: not perfectly on every individual, so the whole society needs the herd immunity. Which anti-vaccers are endangering, in fact they outright destroyed it in some areas of Europe (for measles, at least). So, we have to thank the anti-vaccers in Europe for killing children and endangering everyone to prove a point that did not need any more proof in the first place.
Heck, you don't even need to be a scientist, you only need to go into areas where people who did not get vaccinated from endemic diseases are getting ill all the time, and you and your family, who did get vaccinated (and got bitten by the !@#$!@#$ mosquitoes just the same), don't get ill.
Jeez, even the optional H1N1 vaccines, which are in the very end of "low effectiveness" -- you often end up getting slightly ill, instead of seriously/dangerously ill -- can be easily seen working when you have a major outbreak, like we had in Brazil two years ago. More than 8000 people *DEAD* among the non-vaccinated, less than 100 among the vaccinated, plus a very sharp decline on hospitalizations (and deaths) two weeks after the massive vaccination campaigns *AND* no outbreak on the next year (the government started vaccinating people two months in advance, there was some spillover from the previous year, and much much more people got vaccinated).
Re: (Score:2)
So, would I want to be one of 8000+ dead, unvaccinated, or one of the 100 dead vaccinated.
I would rather take the latter odds.
Nothing in life is 100% guaranteed. Mitigating risk by taking vaccines helps by mitigating the risk to any given individual. It doesn't nullify it.
I would personally accept the risk of being the unfortunate 1 in a million, who die because the vaccine was not effective on my specific physiology.
Re:The science is not settled (Score:4, Insightful)
If 100 of the vaccinated died because of an outbreak of something they were supposed to be vaccinated against -- does this really support your argument that vaccination protects?
Sure: not providing 100% protection doesn't mean not providing protection at all. Claiming the opposite would be ridiculous and we all don't apply such a standard in other cases, so why applying it to vaccines?
As example, using seat belts definitely do *not* save 100% of those who have a car accident, but we consider them an effective protection still.
Re: (Score:2)
"The science has been settled" says the scientism expert. Did you do the experiments yourself?
Here's a simple study you can do: For each of the childhood diseases we vaccinate for routinely, examine the history of outbreaks. Compute the average number of deaths and maimings for each. Then, check current statistics. Use the data to test your hypothesis (whatever it might be) about the benefits of vaccination.
Report your findings to the class.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue how Science works. Here is a hint: It is pretty easy to "buy" something that is actually true, but almost impossible to buy an obvious lie in Science. Of course, in public opinion, things are a bit different.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a long-term thing. In the short-term Science can and has been be manipulated. As I said, you are clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, the science has been *bought* by big pharma a long time ago.
You don't need much science to accept the validity of vaccination: everyone knows that once you get measles you become immune to it, assuming your immune system is functional and you survive it. There is no way to accept that and discredit vaccination since they operate on exactly the same principle.
Re: (Score:2)
What choice did the other kids have that your kids gave polio and measles to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The science is settled (Score:2)
Vaccinations are not 100%.
Nothing is 100%, and to assume that is even a possibilty is folly.
Plenty of people cannot obtain vaccines, and rely on herd immunity. The very young, the very old, those with immunity-compromising diseases.
One family was sued (and lost) precisely because her child, caught measles, and infected (and killed) two children who were too young for vaccines.
In France, there were less than 10 cases of measles a year, no deaths; when the rate of vaccination fell to 98%, there were over 45
Re:The science is not settled (Score:5, Interesting)
'd rather air (sic) on the side of caution. When my children are adults they can decide for themselves if they want to take that poison.
Please do so. Hopefully they will die from one of the childhood diseases that vaccines can prevent, and end the spread of your genes.
Now as for the article stating:
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them.
Paranoid personality disorder is almost impossible to treat, because (1) paranoid people take anything, even coincidences, as evidence that someone is out to get them in one way or another, and (2) they believe their paranoid delusions are validation of their inner self, and any attempt to point out the contrary is just more proof that their paranoia is justified.
It doesn't have to make sense, because we're dealing with people showing signs that in any other situation would be seen as a break with reality, but because of "we must give equal weight to all opinions, even the totally batshit crazy ones," you're evil if you try to do so in this case, again reinforcing their delusions.
Can anyone who isn't an anti-vaxxer deny these people are showing signs of mental illness?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Flu vaccine... (Score:5, Informative)
Second, "flu like symptoms" is far FAR from having the flu itself. People tend to forget just how horribly having a bad flu can affect them. You can still go to work, take care of the kids and so on with "flu like symptoms", but it is quite common for the actual flu to leave you bedridden for days. Even with routine flu infections, there is a risk of death. And the nature of the flu virus is such that we can never wholly predict when the next pandemic killer flu will appear. Remember that H1N1 has been fingered as the killer behind the "Spanish Flu", a disease that, in two years killed more people world wide than the entirety of WW1. Something close to 20% of people who contracted the disease DIED. With the vaccines we have now, mortality rate is something like 0.01% We've gone to entire families dying, to a percentage smaller than a rounding error. I'd say that very VERY effectively demonstrates the effectiveness of flu vaccines don't you?
And while I'm at it, let me say that "flu like symptoms" are not contagious, but the flu certainly is. You can contract and pass along the flu for a day or so before you even have a hint that you're sick, and you can remain contagious for up to 10 days after first noticing symptoms. Being vaccinated reduces that window of contagion a great deal, making everyone else safer as well. (that is the bigger part of the herd immunity effect. The other part is that, with far fewer hosts to replicate in, the opportunities for the virus to mutate into something more virulent are drastically reduced.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be unable to understand anything but black and white statements. Flu vaccines have a probability of working that is pretty good compared to what they prevent and what they have in residual risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, I tried. No way to cure stupid. Incidentally, there are statistics in large companies where they can demonstrate reduced sick-days when they started giving free flu-shots to people, but those would not convince you either, so I will not bother looking them up.
Re: (Score:2)