• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Antivaxers do it again

Beth said:
It's also a matter of urgency. In the situation of an invasive cancer or brain aneurysm, the person knows that if they don't trust the medical professional to do their job, they will probably die quite soon. With vaccines, such a penalty for not trusting the professional is far less likely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have found that it begins to make sense if I think of it as a luxury.

Linda
 
fls said:
Yeah, I have found that it begins to make sense if I think of it as a luxury.

Linda
Click to expand...

What are you referring to as 'it'? Medical care in general or vaccination?

If it's the latter, how is it not a luxury?
 
fls said:
"It" is complaining/criticizing/mistrust/skepticism.

Linda
Click to expand...

So patients should accept whatever a medical expert (or the medical profession in general) recommends as the best course of action, no matter how long they have to make their minds up? To do otherwise is somehow immoral?

Why are anti-vaxers being singled-out from amongst the many other groups (which include members of the medical profession) who engage in negative health behaviours? Emotional as opposed to rational thought appears to run high on both sides of the issue as far as I can tell.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
So patients should accept whatever a medical expert (or the medical profession in general) recommends as the best course of action, no matter how long they have to make their minds up? To do otherwise is somehow immoral?

Why are anti-vaxers being singled-out from amongst the many other groups (which include members of the medical profession) who engage in negative health behaviours? Emotional as opposed to rational thought appears to run high on both sides of the issue as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

I have not (or do not) supported/proposed any of those positions. I will leave it up to someone who does to chime in.

Linda
 
Ivor those other groups you were talking about aren't really analagous. I don't think there are many people around who drink or over eat or refrain from exercise because they actually think these thinks are the more healthy thing to do. They do them in spite of knowing they are unhealthy. I don't think you can put people who choose not to vaccinate in the same category. "I know I am risking my health by not having vaccinations, but it just feels so darn good!"
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Ivor those other groups you were talking about aren't really analagous. I don't think there are many people around who drink or over eat or refrain from exercise because they actually think these thinks are the more healthy thing to do. They do them in spite of knowing they are unhealthy. I don't think you can put people who choose not to vaccinate in the same category. "I know I am risking my health by not having vaccinations, but it just feels so darn good!"
Click to expand...

So it is because anti-vaxers believe the medical profession is wrong (and shout about it) which makes their position immoral?

But so long as people accept (i.e. know) being overweight, smoking, drinking to excess, etc. is bad for their health, them not doing anything about it is fine?
 
Last edited:
I think, for me, it is more about the effect they have on other people who don't have the skill, or time or inclination to research it themselves. Obese people (in the main) don't try to get other people to stop exercising by telling other people that exercise will cause them huge health problems. Anti vaxers DO try to persuade other parents (who don't know much other than that vaccine scare stories keep popping up in the media) not to vaccinate. I equate them more with anti medicine types who might persuade a person with a problem that the conventional medication they are on is what is causing their problems and that they should stop taking it and use energy healing etc.

Personally I wouldn't call most of them immoral anyway. I think a lot of them are just stuck in a specific mindset because of a personal tragedy and a need to have something to blame.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
<snip>

Personally I wouldn't call most of them immoral anyway. I think a lot of them are just stuck in a specific mindset because of a personal tragedy and a need to have something to blame.
Click to expand...

What kind of approach (if any) do you think would work with such people?
 
To be honest, for those deep into the whole vaccine conspiracy, there is not much you can do. All you can do I think is try to make sure that whenever they are around giving dangerous advice to people (eg the JABS forum...), there are other people around pointing out their errors. [edit - and trying to ensure that reputable organisations to not give links to sites like JABS as if they are sites giving balanced information on vaccines]

I think a more pressing problem however is the way media blows up doubts about vaccines and misreports the science. That is something that has a much greater effect on uptake rates.
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
As Ivor pointed out in another thread, with supporting evidence, it's mainly a matter of trust. It's also a matter of urgency. In the situation of an invasive cancer or brain aneurysm, the person knows that if they don't trust the medical professional to do their job, they will probably die quite soon. With vaccines, such a penalty for not trusting the professional is far less likely.

Also, I suspect that the irrational anti-vaxers you despise so much are also much more likely to reject surgical options as well, choosing those alternative medicine approaches instead. After all, some people do make that choice and they often die soon after as a result.
Click to expand...
I don't think these are the main underlying things going on here.

Compartmentalization is the bulk of the issue.

If I think Big Pharma is evil, I keep that in a separate compartment from my health care provider's skills and knowledge.

The public health should be more altruistic, so in that compartment I put a distortion of the goal of herd immunity as the motive for not caring about individual risks (this is illogical of course but no matter). I leave out of the compartment anything else like the fact public health includes many intelligent experienced educated doctors and nurses capable of assessing vaccine risk and benefit.

And so on it goes.
 
Skeptigirl,

Do you have any negative health behaviours?

If so, what stops you assessing the risks and benefits of them properly?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Skeptigirl,

Do you have any negative health behaviours?

If so, what stops you assessing the risks and benefits of them properly?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you do not recall the answer I have for this question. But I have posted it more than once as well as incorporate it into some of my classes.

Life is full of risk benefit decisions. Getting out of bed, staying in bed, going outside, staying inside, etc. all have risks and benefits. The important thing is to use the best information to make those decisions. You want to use real or actual risk and not perceived risk which is typically out of proportion to real risk. And you want to make a conscious decision in some cases.

Risks that are easy to avoid are no brainers, seat belts, smoke alarms, basic safety, easily modifiable risk interventions. There is just no excuse for anyone dying in a fire because they didn't bother with a smoke alarm or checking its battery.

Risks that are harder to avoid are more individual. I am not going to give up driving in vehicles even though that is one of the riskiest things I do on a regular basis. And when it comes to a good steak or bacon with breakfast, I don't want to give those up for the health benefit. Someone else might find that an easier risk reduction measure. So I keep the guilty pleasure to a minimum, and then, here's the important part, once I have decided to take or forgo a risk, I quit worrying about it. Stress is also hard on the body.

I have a relatively healthy lifestyle. I walk my dogs about 2 miles every day except when my work schedule is overwhelming during fall flu shots. I don't smoke. I drink that proverbial glass or two of red wine in the evening and may switch to grape juice if the studies show the same benefit. I am however, compensating for my wilder days and I wouldn't go back and give those up under any circumstances. Those risks were soooo worth it.

The problem I see you making here is your selective attention to certain risks. Smoking is probably a useless risk people take but of the other risks, diet and exercise in particular, the evidence is clear these can include risks which are not so easy to abate. Contrary to some people's beliefs that diet and exercise are simply matters of willpower, that just isn't what the evidence shows. You can willfully hold your breath. That doesn't mean you can hold it at will for an indefinite length of time. People can control what they eat, and what exercise they get, but it is grossly oversimplified to think willpower is the only mitigating factor involved.

So putting diet and exercise in the same category as using a seatbelt is not accurate. But what about the risks you are not thinking of? I assume you drive or ride in motor vehicles or walk the streets where those vehicles are within striking distance? You've expressed the attitude in your post that you don't consider those risks avoidable. But they are. You can go out less. You can become a hermit and work from home. Does it cross many people's minds that they are making a decision to take a sometimes unnecessary risk by driving? Why is choosing to go to the movies or a park or on a vacation trip seen as a different risk decision from having that high fat high sugar desert? Neither is required. Both are pleasurable for the most part.

Bottom line, it's a risk benefit decision, use the best information, make the decision, always do the easy things, and be happy.
 
Last edited:
biostudent said:
It's still dated Feb 28th, so... I have a bad feeling that it will stay that way.
Click to expand...
I can't post urls on here yet, but at this page: insidevaccines dot com/wordpress/?p=86 - there is some pink text in the main body of the blog post and a note from Minority View in the comments referring to this forum.


I criticised Inside Vaccines for using a sensationalised, fictionalised account of a meeting with (a caricature of) a doctor. I got an excellent reply from one of the Inside Vaccines crowd - "Perhaps it is a bit lighthearted compared to our many well-researched, well-referenced articles." So I criticised another article titled "Vaccine Science???" and I got this reply -
"What did you think of the propaganda in the Anti-Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions article?" That was when I realised that no matter what you complain about on their blog, they will switch to talking about another article rather than defend the piece that is being criticised. Redirection.


I also find it quite amusing that they make those claims about being scientists and researchers aiming to provide data about vaccinations on their 'About us' page:
Inside Vaccines is a group of citizens (scientists, authors, engineers, librarians, researchers, parents and grandparents) who believe that making an effective risk v. benefit assessment regarding routine immunizations is crucial. Our articles discuss vaccinations, studies and research compilations. We cite sources such as the CDC and JAMA. Our hope is that we are able to provide you with clear, concise data which will spur your own research and analysis. Read on!
Click to expand...
(My emphasis)
 
jdc324 said:
I can't post urls on here yet, but at this page: insidevaccines dot com/wordpress/?p=86 - there is some pink text in the main body of the blog post and a note from Minority View in the comments referring to this forum.//
I also find it quite amusing that they make those claims about being scientists and researchers aiming to provide data about vaccinations on their 'About us' page:
(My emphasis)
Click to expand...
The minorityview guy tried to tempt JREF and badscience posters to come over to his patch and debate him there.
I was reluctant to give him the oxygen of publicity, as it were. Seems like the site is attracting a bit of traffic tho.
 
Minority View and some of the other JABS regulars won't post on badscience because of spyware.(!) Or so they say.
 
Rolfe said:
Better not let Jerome da Gnome see that. It will be one more slogan with which to decry SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Which is about as bad as bubonic plague in his sad little world.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I live in a very happy world. It is one in which my neighbors and I provide for our selfs without the need for a Father figure in the form of government taking from other people to provide us with things. Do you understand that which is provided for you by government was taken from another person? I find those that rely on the government for their needs are nothing more than parasitic and ungrateful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom