Given everyone’s various degrees of lack of trust in a highly corrupt and inefficient system, it’s perhaps easier to see how people “throw the baby out with the bathwater” when it comes to understanding science & medicine relative to the industries that profit from their corrupt establishment. If you don’t trust the messenger, how can you trust the message?
I don’t think it’s based in science, or distrust of a “corrupt“ or untrustworthy system. It seems to be a combination of cult-like group-think, misplaced parental emotions, and social media-driven fear-mongering, all brought together by a determinedly anti-intellectual anti-science stance.
I recently had the weirdest convo with a cardio nurse who doubted evolution. How does someone get trained and end up working in healthcare not believe in evolution?!
I'm guessing that he's like a talented mechanic. Probably very good at the job. But can't wrap his head around anything meta like evolution.
(Yes, this person is also deep into one of those Rock & Roll Jesus churches.)
Simply claiming they are idiots because you can't make the argument, doesn't solve the issue or push things any closer to a resolution.
Think of it this way, there may be actual issues with vaccines that aren't being addressed because the current legal and political environment protects the vaccine companies from litigation and consequences. You also have a group think around vaccines that says they are all good, no matter what, take every shot on the schedule they tell you to take without question, they can't possibly be wrong or bad. This presents a problem in the debate also.
What if the concerned parents only response to these issues is to stop taking the vaccines because concerns aren't being addressed?
This would be a good time for everyone to step back and start having a discussion instead of shaming and flinging barbs.
As for the list of negative traits you mention, none of those are incompatible with distrust of a corrupt system. So I'm not sure what your point is.
I can only assume that you think every anti-vaxxer would still be an anti-vaxxer even if the medical community had a 100% sterling record on everything and education was perfect. While that might certainly be true for some of them (Christian scientists and such), I have a hard time generalizing that to the movement as a whole.
Not sure why this is downvoted. I’m genuinely curious. The perspective that having a sentiment puts someone into a group is one I haven’t considered and I would like to understand it more.
I know they were wrong on the vaccine stance, but I do think their viewpoints are correct about most of modern medicine and I’m happy for the healthy criticism of it I have, in part due to them.
Clinical tests for vaccines do not follow golden standard that any other pharmaceutical products have to follow. Vaccines are never tested against inert placebo. No pharmacocynetic studies were ever done and are not required. Manufacturers are exempt form being liable. Any parents reporting any side effects are ridiculed. Epidemiological studies done on the subject are just bad.
But if you portray people asking this question as "anti-intellectual anti-science cult-like group" then you won the discussion because you prevented any rational and scientific discussion from even taking a place. A job well done.
60 minutes : Generic drug makers accused of price fixing
Interestingly, nearly all drug companies have compassionate use programs that get high cost drugs to poor people. Funny how the articles rarely mention these programs!
Note: there certainly are unethical players in this field, but it's still painful when you're an ethical player in this field, to hear people throw accusations that don't have all the internal context.
Again, there are massive systemic barriers to making higher quality drugs that are effective- both against disease, and in terms of cost. The government could go a long way to changing laws to achieve this.
More than I trust myself to diagnose and treat medical issues.
I still respect the New York Times but even they've jumped the gun so many times recently it's hard not to question. If I was less educated and didn't understand the economic/social forces driving them and how to account for that I'd probably just write them off entirely as many have done.
Same goes for government agencies and the medical establishment. People have literally been killed, sometimes slowly and painfully on account of their corrupt advice.
Edit: Lot of down-votes all of a sudden. For the record I'm not endorsing anti-vaxxers. Just saying in a world where skepticism of institutions is rightly warranted many will take it too far.
Rather, the occams razor is that they are just wrong and misled. They got into anti vax propaganda on FB or elsewhere, its straight misinformation, feeling of parental superiority, and conspiracy thinking. Given they hold numerous false views about vaccines like risks with autism and arsenic, its clearly bad information that is virally infecting people via social media.
And downvoted for disagreeing civilly, have to love it, is this reddit?
I have a feeling it's because it's an obvious change so everyone blames the surface level platforms (like they blamed TV and video games in the past). Which then offers them an easy "solution" to censor our way out of them as a panacea and then they can blame the tech companies and regulators and politicians for not “doing something” to make humans less dumb.
Editorializing hundreds of millions of people’s daily thoughts and opinions on our way to utopia!
The speed of spreading information, true or false, in social medias.
And sadly my own experience suggests that false informations spread way faster.
It is easy to blame this on Facebook or Twitter, it feels neat and concise. The reality is the concerns already existed outside social media, and the medical community and companies were not addressing these concerns adequately.
Hence, we are where we are at now.
TV news results in news becoming pageant hair, red dresses, and flag waving graphics. TV changed what it meant to be informed and the end state was what we have now.
It's easy to see that the social medium will and did change the message. It also changes what it means to be informed, but in a different way than TV did.
If we are the media does that mean it changes the form of what it means to be person and social life?
What do they possibly have to gain from taking these adversarial positions in such hotly contested issues? Is it really possible that they are grossly misinformed too?
These people have the net worth to wholly forsake raising their kids here and picking some foreign domicile that offers them choice in these vaccination issues.
Robert De Niro and RFK Jr. have joined forces to push vaccine nonsense
Jessica Biel Weighs In on Vaccine Fight, Drawing Fierce Pushback
Yes. They also have kids with working immune system and if their children get measles, they have enough money to have them checked before anything debilitating happens. The child of my mother's cousins died in 2016 because he couldnt get vaccinated (his immune system was too weak), and those antivax who chose not to vaccine their children disturbed the herd immunity. Murderers.
There’s a certain power and thus seduction to just claiming you know something other people don’t know. There will always be dissension for the sake of dissent.
Delete your account, you scientific illiterate.
Ironically, Al is added to vaccines as an adjuvant, thus reducing the amount of antigens needed to provide an effective dose. And the quantity of Al used is tiny; less than what babby is already exposed to through the environment. So you’d think that “vaccine-concerned” parents would be all for something that actually reduces exposure to active ingredients. But as we’ve seen again and again, your average anti-vaxxer doesn’t know biochemistry, epidemiology, and risk-vs-benefit calculations from a kick to the head; though that’s hardly surprising for a bunch of malignant narcissists all pathologically incapable of counting beyond One.
The last paragraph is the whole article.
It's more of a media thing IMHO: the media love scandals because it generates a lot of viewers. What better than a scandal involving your defenseless babies to drive those $$$?
The media and public reaction was, initially, entirely understandable. Particularly where few remember how bad measles and the rest can affect the unvaccinated. It necessarily took time to disprove and strike-off Andrew Wakefield.
What I fail to comprehend is that now he's no longer allowed to call himself Dr, he is permitted to spread his lies in the US. Somehow he has managed to become and remain something of a personality doing so.
On a tangent: what has your post been down-voted? It's a good well reasoned reply to my comment. It should be getting up-votes.
Parents can be ignorant - but they are more reliable to have their children interest as their main objective then any institution. In communism times, and probably generally in the past, the institutions like hospitals were much more authoritarian, and in my family there is a personal story about how horrific it sometimes was.
Of course doctors don't like being checked.
Now vaxination is a kind of shibboleth - something you need to agree with, and agree quickly and automatically, to be admitted to the 'enlightened' society.
I think the hysteria around anti-vaxxers is the worst thing.
Does the responsibility of murder dilute when enough people is involved? At this school were this happened, the only antivaxxers who showed guilt were the ones whose children will have sequela.
I know its not possible, but let those antivax live in the same communities and develop their own immunity w/o vaccines. Or at least, when a kid can't get vaccinated, let his parent know if the school is safe.
As for the mistrust of medical professionals, I cannot fathom what it was like to live in a society that blindly followed the State without data to support the position--that must be horrible. Fortunately in the developed, modern world, the data is free for everyone to look at and decide for themselves. Here is a nice review with references showing just how amazing vaccines are: https://medium.com/@visualvaccines/graphic-proof-that-vaccin...
I think part of the reason 'enlightened' society requires everyone to be vaccinated is herd immunity. Not everyone can take a vaccine and be protected, so it's up to the majority of society to protect them. Granted, this is another discussion of who's responsible for taking care of whom, but in modern developed societies we have agreed as a majority to help the less fortunate. An example here are small children, people undergoing chemotherapy, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems. These are the people that vaccine herd protection protects.
I'm sorry you feel the hysteria around anti-vaxxers to be the worst thing. I can imagine how difficult it must be to feel better informed than the masses and everyone to think you're the fool. Numerous people throughout history have been murdered for speaking truth to the masses because what they were saying was not convenient.
Herd immunity is indeed the part that makes the whole thing political and difficult, because it is a common good. But in a healthy debate there should be a place for people sceptical about something - they should not be automatically demonized.
I don't quite understand what you write about my feelings - because I don't identify as antivaxxer, I vaccinated my children and I trust the scientific data in general. I just feel better thinking that there are people who read the leaflets and double check the doctors and I don't think they should be vilified even if in the most part these people are not reasonable in their distrust. I also believe that it is better if we don't mandate trust in vaccination - but let people make their minds individually, even if we sometimes lose herd immunity, because the alternative authoritarian system leads to worse things.
The fact that the only answers to the questions and concerns is to employ shaming tactics is not compelling or rational enough to push parents with major concerns into doing it.
The medical communities modus operandi of "we have a drug or pill for that", especially around opioids for instance, has created distrust amongst a lot of people also that had recent interactions with doctors.
It is kind of a perfect storm of issues in my opinion.
So take a new parent who’s surging with oxytocin and vasopressin; give the parents only one choice (vaccinate or don’t); and then stick a needle in their kid. Then repeat that the next visit but with multiple shots.
Hmmmm... yep it is the internet...
How about this:
- Create two vaccination schedules to provide parents choice
- Force vaccine providers to package vaccines to reduce the number of shots
- Eliminate vaccines at birth when parents hormones are surging
- Centralize tracking of vaccinations to reduce the burden on parents who move between health care providers because of changes in insurance
- Offer in-home checkups and vaccines for at-risk groups that you wouldn’t be able to reach otherwise
The CDC et al already tried placating those malevolent turds by removing a perfectly safe preservative from vials (increasing the cost and risk of those vaccines to everyone), and the only thing that happened was those messianic loons and malignant grifters took that “goodwill gesture” as a validation of all their egomaniacal bullshit, and so doubled-down on their screeching and lies in return.
Here’s a much better idea: how about taking each one of those new parents for a good long walk around every nineteenth-century graveyard in town, and count up all the gravestones under which little kids lie, from a time when even in a “first-world” society endemic diseases killed one in ever two or three before adulthood, and tell all thpse blessedly ignorant modern-day parents of yours to grow the fuck up.
I’m on my 6th doctor (2nd urologist) and finally I think I have a diagnosis for a long standing issue. Every doctor has a different opinion or way to treat what I have. Some of it is because the science is actively evolving. But a lot of it is because doctors themselves have their own opinions about the science based on their own anecdotal experiences treating patients.
Eventually I have to go with the doctors opinion that “feels right” to me.
I know vaccines fall in a seemingly “obvious” category, but when my experience is fairly typical, I can understand the frustration with being told to take the doctors opinion as gospel.
Vaccine-resistance, as a mental-state looks akin to the immune system, which normally confers disease immunity but, when running amok can trigger allergies.
It is implied that some medical sociologists now consider vaccine-resistant thinking as a kind of allergy to benign societal forces and are planning a social vaccination program to eradicate such wrong-headedness.
As an aside, the word meme was used near to its original sense - as Dawkins defined it - in the last chapter of his classic "The Selfish Gene".
I'm by no means a biologist, so I have no idea how much substance the idea has, but it seems to me like the existence of anti-vaccine mindsets in general should provide an evolutionary advantage for many strands of germs.
Of course it doesn't hold so well when not everybody else has been vaccinated, as then the chance of catching the disease is higher. That's presumably why OP added the qualifier "everybody else is vaccinated".
Sorry, but anti-vax is not an exercise in Game Theory; it’s an exercise in narcissistic shit-flingers indulging their malignant ignorance and delusions of control; and fuck everyone else, including their own children, that pays the price for their depraved indifference.
besides, if this is true then you shouldn't publicize anti-vax, because this means "not everyone else" is vaccinated.