An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

[trotsky]

This link was posted in another thread by SemiCharmedQuark, but it is so damn good it deserves a thread of its own.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1

This isn’t a religious dispute, like the debate over creationism and intelligent design. It’s a challenge to traditional science that crosses party, class, and religious lines. It is partly a reaction to Big Pharma’s blunders and PR missteps, from Vioxx to illegal marketing ploys, which have encouraged a distrust of experts. It is also, ironically, a product of the era of instant communication and easy access to information. The doubters and deniers are empowered by the Internet (online, nobody knows you’re not a doctor) and helped by the mainstream media, which has an interest in pumping up bad science to create a “debate” where there should be none.

...

The rejection of hard-won knowledge is by no means a new phenomenon. In 1905, French mathematician and scientist Henri Poincaré said that the willingness to embrace pseudo-science flourished because people “know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether illusion is not more consoling.” Decades later, the astronomer Carl Sagan reached a similar conclusion: Science loses ground to pseudo-science because the latter seems to offer more comfort. “A great many of these belief systems address real human needs that are not being met by our society,” Sagan wrote of certain Americans’ embrace of reincarnation, channeling, and extraterrestrials. “There are unsatisfied medical needs, spiritual needs, and needs for communion with the rest of the human community.”

Looking back over human history, rationality has been the anomaly. Being rational takes work, education, and a sober determination to avoid making hasty inferences, even when they appear to make perfect sense. Much like infectious diseases themselves — beaten back by decades of effort to vaccinate the populace — the irrational lingers just below the surface, waiting for us to let down our guard.

...

Still, despite peer-reviewed evidence, many parents ignore the math and agonize about whether to vaccinate. Why? For starters, the human brain has a natural tendency to pattern-match — to ignore the old dictum “correlation does not imply causation” and stubbornly persist in associating proximate phenomena. If two things coexist, the brain often tells us, they must be related. Some parents of autistic children noticed that their child’s condition began to appear shortly after a vaccination. The conclusion: “The vaccine must have caused the autism.” Sounds reasonable, even though, as many scientists have noted, it has long been known that autism and other neurological impairments often become evident at or around the age of 18 to 24 months, which just happens to be the same time children receive multiple vaccinations. Correlation, perhaps. But not causation, as studies have shown.

There is much, much more at the link, including how the anti-vax movement preys on parents and offers them false hope while stealing their money, how in the grand scheme of things the profit from vaccines is ridiculously small compared to the drugs "big pharma" sells, how the anti-vax movement keeps shifting their position as science and facts shoot down their assertions one by one, etc. A very worthwhile read.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. It is easy to con the ignorant.

There are more than a few people that make it their business to con the gullible out of their money and their lives.

[kestrel91316]

4. I suppose there are those who thought that Louis Pasteur himself was

"conning the gullible". Some people don't want to be confused by facts because their minds are already made up.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. That is one way of putting it.

I would say they work from a base of superstition and a subconscious fear of science.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. Hate to tell you this, but there are people as anti-Pasteur as creationists are anti-Darwin

One posted on DU a couple of days ago. He said that Pasteur won out because of big corporations...etc. etc. etc.

These people are Beauchamp supporters. Hell, even Bill Maher tried to pass off that bullshit about Pasteur recanting on his death bed and admitting Beauchamp was right.

and that's not all.

Behold:

"In the medical schools of the United States and many other Western countries today, doctors are taught a lie. This lie is a particular viewpoint about disease called The Germ Theory. The scientist credited with discovering it is Louis Pasteur, also credited with finding a cure for Rabies. Pasteur has been heralded as making some of the most important discoveries of all time. Yet, when we look at the historical evidence, we see that Pasteur was an incompetent fraud! Not only did he NOT understand the processes which he experimented with and wrote about, but most of what he is credited with discovering was plagarized from scientists previous to or contemporary with him. For a thorough rendition of this history, you can read the full text of the 1940's book "Pasteur, Plagarist, Imposter" by R.B. Pearson at The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur ."

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html


So it's not so much that people "thought" Pasteur was a con artist. People still think that.

[glowing]

2. I'm not so sure. Vaccines can fuck up children.

The best advice, don't immunize while your child is sick. Children are developing and growing.. this includes the brain. Some children are allergic to things that is too early to know about. AND if the child is already sick and the vaccine makes the body temp increase on top of the illness, then the child's brain is frying. To say there is no risk is stupid... To say don't vaccinate is stupid. Lying by big pharma about risks for mass production has lead to this.. AND then there is the govt who is always admitting to some kind of psy-ops on the people. Not trusting those who have been in violation time and again of one's trust is hard to swallow. Like the cheating husband who swears, it will never happen again..

[trotsky]

3. "don't immunize while your child is sick"

This is a well-known fact. It's been the advice of the EVIL PSY-OPS GUBMINT BIG PHARMA MEDICAL CONSPIRACEEEE for decades.

[pnwmom]

15. But in the real world -- as opposed to the controlled world of research studies --

it happens every day.

[trotsky]

18. And you have evidence of this?

Please support your claims with at least a shred of evidence. Thanks.

[pnwmom]

19. Yes. I had a family practice doctor --when I was young and more

trusting and less informed than I am today -- who thought nothing of giving vaccines when a baby "only" had a cold.

The problem is that infants can often be quite sick without running a fever. If there are any signs of illness -- even "just a cold" -- the vaccines should be postponed.

[trotsky]

20. That's a lovely anecdotal story.

It doesn't count as evidence. How can I possibly know whether or not you're just making it up?

If there are any signs of illness -- even "just a cold" -- the vaccines should be postponed.

For one of our kids, they were. Our son had a stuffy nose at either his 4-mo or 6-mo checkup, and the doc postponed the vaccine he was due for.

So my anecdotal evidence counters yours, and we're left with my original challenge to you: provide some actual evidence. I'm waiting.

[pnwmom]

23. I don't care whether YOU don't know if I'm making it up.

It is evidence to ME, as I make my individual decisions about vaccines, that doctors are not always as cautious as they should be.

[trotsky]

26. Okey dokey, at least we're clear.

You have no evidence other than your one personal story (which can never be independently verified) to back up you claim.

[kestrel91316]

5. Any physician worth their license ALREADY KNOWS NOT TO VACCINATE

ANYBODY WHEN THEY ARE SICK. I'm just a lowly ignorant veterinarian and I have a strict policy against vaccinating a patient within a week of a known or suspected fever. It's common knowledge that the immune system can't mount an adequate vaccine response when it's "busy" fighting a real infection.

I love it when laypersons try to instruct doctors in basic medical practice..

[glowing]

7. Its not uncommon for a mother to take their child in for a runny nose, and then

also be talked into the "oh, your child's due for his/her next immune shot, let's get that out of the way." Maybe its just something I've heard commonly in my area of living space. I had to ask the "intern" to NOT "just immunize" while we were at the Doc's when the child had an ear infection. Layperson's are parents who need to know how to raise children.. Unless you are a professional at that too.

[kestrel91316]

8. A doctor who immunizes an already ill (with infectious dz) child needs

to sit down and review basic immunology and preventive health principles. It's a medical no-no.

More evidence that medical schools will take any boob who can come up with the tuition.........

[pnwmom]

13. You're a vet, right? What I've been seeing is that vets are much more

thoughtful and conservative about vaccines than most pediatricians now. I wish pediatricians would decide on a simple list of "core vaccines" and "non-core vaccines" like vets have. And would be conscientious about not giving vaccines to a sick patient. And would be open to the idea that too many vaccines, especially at the same time, might have a negative impact on the immune system. And would read the increasing number of animal studies that show that they do.

I think, as a vet, you might be surprised at how differently pediatricians approach vaccines. Since most states don't mandate many vaccines for animals, vets are free to -- and do -- use their best judgment.

[kestrel91316]

25. Sadly, I have to tell you that the majority of veterinarians in my area

are woefully ignorant about one vaccine in particular: rabies. If I had a nickel for every client who has told me that their previous vet in SoCal said "cats don't NEED rabies shots" or worse yet "cats don't GET rabies", I could retire. So we aren't great about all aspects of the vaccine thing either, lol.

Disclaimer: I personally diagnosed and reported the most recent case of domestic animal rabies in LA County - 1987 - a cat.

[mopinko]

42. most vets i know give as many vacs as

the owner can afford. period.

[gkhouston]

49. Whoa, that's never happened with my kid. I've made more than a few return trips

for a quick shot because the Incredible Snot Monster (excuse me, my darling daughter) had the sniffles. They won't even do her during the height of allergy season, when she's constantly boogified.

[pnwmom]

14. I should have read this post first, Kestrel.

"Lowly ignorant veterinarians" are actually ahead of most pediatricians on the issue of vaccine safety -- really. Maybe the reason is that there are so many mandated vaccines for babies now that doctors are just trying to squeeze them all in. Also, vets tend to have read the animal studies that increasingly link vaccines to immune-system effects -- doctors are unaware of those. I think you'd be surprised at how cavalier many pediatricians are with regard to vaccinations compared to most vets -- probably because the state mandates vaccines. So doctors don't have to really think about it.

[Euromutt]

47. Nowhere near as much as the diseases do

I'm old enough to have had mumps, measles and chicken pox twice and I count myself lucky to have come away with no more permanent damage than a dozen or so pockmarks. I've lied through two polio outbreaks, which occurred among hard-line Calvinist communities who were opposed to vaccination on religious so-called principles (as a parent of a small child now, I can't wrap my head around the fucked-up mindset that would suborn the well-being of your child to anything), and I thank Jonas Salk there was a vaccine to protect me. A guy in my basic training platoon developed meningitis, which got him an instant discharge and the rest of his squad a week's quarantine, and that was in 1993, not that long ago. I've had co-workers who lost children to variants of meningitis which we can vaccinate against today. And we'd be insane not to.

[zazen]

6. but pregnant women refusing x-rays or thalydamide were called irrational too

And yet they saved their babies from horrid fates.

I haven't read the materials enough to make a final decision for my children re the H1N1 shot--it hasn't been available here yet, or if so, the lines are hours long--but "patient" resistance to the medical establishment and determination to make up our own minds based on reviewing the literature isn't ridiculous or idiotic. If patients don't want to question, fine. But I've routinely read peer-reviewed studies my doctors haven't, because I read up on a condition before I see a doctor about it. And that goes for pregnancy (in which my docs screwed up) and breast cancer treatment (in which my docs screwed up). And I made arguments to them at the time based on reading peer-reviewed science myself, which they discounted, AND IN RETROSPECT MY CONCERNS WERE PROVEN TO BE WELL-FOUNDED. LIKE, LAWSUIT LEVEL WELL-FOUNDED. If you have a sound liberal arts education and know how to interpret statistics, it's not hard to read up on the latest research regarding a condition to at least ask informed questions and assess how familiar your doctor is with the same issues and studies.

Scientific knowledge--its paradigms--are inherently transient. I'll accept tenets if they are well-researched, but I won't be shamed by physicians or scientists into not advocating for myself and my children. And secure, good doctors wouldn't want to treat me that way either. The best ones take patient concerns seriously, and either counter the concerns with reasons equally researched and advocated, or else say, I DON'T KNOW.

[trotsky]

9. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.

But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan

You are guilty of a logical fallacy, but clearly you've already made up your mind. Good luck, and make sure to thank all the other parents who are vaccinating their children - because we're the only ones protecting your precious brood from serious disease and/or death.

[pnwmom]

11. You don't know what a logical fallacy is. Thalidomide is an excellent example.

Fortunately, we in the U.S. were protected from its worst effects. But a couple of major lawsuits here, above the million dollar range, helped put an end to that tragedy -- years of tiny awards in Europe weren't enough to convince the manufacturers to take the poison off the market.

[trotsky]

16. You are correct. Using thalidomide is a perfect example of a logical fallacy.

Thanks!

[pnwmom]

12. Excellent examples, Zazen. Another example is the polio vaccine, which was

used in the live form for years after there was any real justification for it over the (original) killed form.

[Chemisse]

30. Good for you! It's a whole lot better to read and research and

advocate for yourself and your family, than it is to just blissfully assume 'doctor knows best.'

[trotsky]

32. So you pretty much completely ignored the point of the article then, huh?

That's a pity.

[Chemisse]

34. Just because some people go off the deep end

Regarding vaccinations (grand conspiracies and all that) doesn't mean we all have to recoil from that and embrace any and all vaccines without any critical thinking.

It's childlike to pointedly take the opposite position.

[trotsky]

35. "embrace any and all vaccines without any critical thinking"

Good thing no one - even me! - does that. That would be a strawman of your creation.

[Chemisse]

36. Really!!?? Do tell.

What vaccine have you ever seen that you didn't like?

[trotsky]

37. For me and my children, none.

But then, we don't have any underlying health issues.

People with certain immune conditions and chronic diseases should not be vaccinated, and I've never suggested otherwise. So to be surprised by this is certainly an epic fail on your part, since I have always stated this quite clearly, and it's why I am strongly in favor of vaccinating as many people as possible so we can provide herd immunity to those who cannot vaccinate (and those for whom the vaccine did not take, which is always a possibility).

Apparently you've been arguing with your strawman for a long, long time and ignoring the hundreds of posts I've made on this subject.

[Chemisse]

38. Ahh, but you embrace any and all vaccines without question

For you and your family, as long as "Big Daddy" says it's safe.

It must be nice to be so trusting.

[trotsky]

39. There is no "Big Daddy."

I trust the epidemiologists, doctors, scientists, and thousands of other educated and trained individuals who come up with, test, and produce vaccines.

At the very least, I understand that the risk from a vaccine is incredibly tiny compared to the risk of disease. Most anti-vaxers are simply unable to understand basic risk management, and they lash out and attack like you are doing.

I see that you conveniently ignored the rest of my post, however. Sucks to have your position torn to shreds, doesn't it?

[Chemisse]

40. No that's not it

It was a yawner. You have said that many times, and nobody disputes that some people cannot have vaccines.

[trotsky]

43. So your original comment was completely unfounded.

Thanks for sort of admitting it.

[Chemisse]

44. How is that?

You need to support your statements. Otherwise it just looks like you are making meaningless jabs to make yourself feel superior.

Oh wait. That is exactly what you are doing. That's why you rely upon insults and snark rather than actual facts.

[trotsky]

46. Well, I'll give you credit. You are very, very good at projection.

Your quote:

to just blissfully assume 'doctor knows best.'

I.e., insult and snark. By YOU. Based on that comment, I said that you obviously hadn't read the article. No snark or insult. You replied by implying my position was that we:

embrace any and all vaccines without any critical thinking

I pointed out that was a strawman, that no one says such a thing. No snark or insult. I restated my position, which is NOT that vaccines are always 100% safe, effective, or even for everyone. You responded with MORE snark and insult:

...you embrace any and all vaccines without question. For you and your family, as long as "Big Daddy" says it's safe. It must be nice to be so trusting.

I further stated my position with more facts and analysis. No snark or insult, I merely observed that your original comments - that somehow I (or unnamed others) "blissfully assume doctor knows best" OR that we "embrace any and all vaccines without any critical thinking" - were completely unfounded and false.

Realizing this, you then lash out and accuse me of the exact behavior you exhibited on this subthread: snark and insult. That's OK, I certainly don't expect any kind of apology. Your humiliation from making such false and outlandish attacks is enough for me.

[pnwmom]

10. Greedy vaccine manufacturers like Merck, who attempt to mandate

brand new vaccines and refuse to share their "proprietary" adverse effects data (including identifying information) with the CDC/FDA -- even though federal law protects them from liability lawsuits -- have earned the distrust of parents.

[trotsky]

17. So, do you have anyting whatsoever...

anything at all...

any evidence, any reasoning, any inkling whatsoever to dispute ANY of the facts in the article?

Or are you just here to pointlessly bash, while completely ignoring the article in the OP?

[pnwmom]

21. Of course I do. Since reposting seems to be the order of the day,

here is that excellent article by Dr. Herbert of Harvard. It's full of facts that you clearly haven't absorbed yet.

http://www.medicalveritas.com/MarthaHerbert.pdf

But, with regard to the article you reposted, I'll have to say I agree with its initial point -- the vaccine manufacturers have brought much of this distrust upon themselves.

[trotsky]

22. So you agree with the article...

and you can't come up with any evidence yourself to point out where it's wrong?

That's excellent to hear.

[pnwmom]

24. I agree with one point of the article, as I said, and I just gave you

an article full of evidence that conflicts with many of its other points. You can sort through it at your leisure. I'm done.

[trotsky]

27. Perhaps you could state some of its arguments?

Viruses can infect PDF files, so I don't ever download those from unknown sites.

[trotsky]

28. Oh, and by the way...

Dr. Martha Herbert was disqualified as an expert in a recent court case.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/autism_quackery_at_the_university_of_tor.php

Dr. Herbert's publications indicate that she is an outspoken advocate of increased attention to the possibility of environmental influences. Even she, however, despite that acknowledged perspective, speaks in her published work of possibilities and potentialities, rather than of the 'reasonable degree of medical certainty' to which she offers to testify under oath in this case.10 Neither Dr. Herbert's publications, nor any others cited, identify mold exposure as even a suspected, still less a known or proven, trigger of autism......Dr. Herbert's method, to the extent the Court can discern it from the materials offered, is a series of deductions based on possibilities.....*Clearly, Dr. Herbert's method is not generally accepted in the scientific community*. Dr. Herbert's theory of environmental triggers of autism may some day prove true. It has not yet. Her proffered testimony does not meet the standard of reliability required by the case law, and cannot be admitted in evidence at trial.

She is evidently just one of the latest hucksters to seek fame & fortune with the anti-vax movement.

[Chemisse]

41. That is exactly my concern.

Our federal government has been hijacked by big business and you can't just trust them to look out for the consumer or patient if there is a big donator pressuring them to do otherwise.

We have seen this over and over again with anything from compromised food products to automobile safety to mad cow disease precautions.

[Dorian Gray]

33. I think it's important for everybody

to talk to their doctors about their concerns with the vaccine and then get proper medical advice about all this. Don't listen to rumors on the internet. Find a doctor you trust, discuss your fears about this, and follow his or her advice.

[Quantess]

45. It doesn't matter. There isn't enough flu vaccine to go around, anyway.

If they don't want their kid to have the shot, someone else's kid will get the shot.

[Euromutt]

48. It's not just about flu

Flu vaccines are one of the least effective ones anyway, because flu mutates so rapidly, which is why a new vaccine needs to be developed every year. But there's a whole schedule of diseases against which vaccines can guard much more effectively: measles, mumps, rubella, varicella (chicken pox), rotavirus, hepatitis A & B, diphtheria, polio, pertussis (whooping cough), Hib meningitis, tetanus, certain strains of HPV, and we could add scarlet fever if antibiotics (the greatest invention of the 20th century) hadn't made the vaccine redundant. And I'm sure I'm missing a few. While the occasional flu pandemic might rack up catastrophic death tolls once every several decades at most, the diseases mentioned used to inflict tolls of death and permanent injury of many thousands every year, year after year, until vaccines were developed and administered in sufficient amounts to generate herd immunity.