The Anti-vaccination movement!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-vaccination movement!

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gimp Fack posted:

I'm definitely no professional at all in this topic so perhaps my quick assumptions are incorrect. I just would not think a respected pediatrician would agree with this as the best solution.

Clinicians aren't trained as scientists, and don't have any special ability to evaluate information outside their training.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 06:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 20:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

DreamShipWrecked posted:

He's saying that there's a reason why they have to send samples off to separate labs to get the testing done. They can't do it themselves, they lack the training/equipment.

No, I actually am saying that clinicians aren't really trained to evaluate science outside their specialty.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 17:20

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

tehllama posted:

Your point doesn't really have anything to do with Discendo Vox erroneously claiming that somehow pediatricians don't have the same level of ability to interpret scientific papers as any undergraduate in a STEM field.

The standard for evaluating scientific papers to make care decisions should be, and is, higher than the undergraduate level. Clinicians are trained to think they can evaluate scientific papers, but a bare minimum of literacy is inadequate to keep them from misunderstanding and overrating statements outside their fields of immediate knowledge. How many pediatricians can diagnose a Heywood case?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 17:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

tehllama posted:

Aren't you an ethics major, and therefore a nonscientist? So any paper you read indicating as such would be outside your field and therefore you ability to interpret it. If such a study even existed, which you haven't provided any evidence of.

I'm a bioethics and comm sci major, and yes, there are a lot of papers outside my immediate area of expertise that I can't fully vet-so I don't tend to make clinical care decisions based on those papers! :v:

Even so, I have way more relevant training in evaluating publications than a clinician receives.

Ytlaya posted:

I think it would be more accurate to say that, even if they are trained to, their job doesn't involve actually doing so (whereas a scientist has no choice but to interpret scientific literature as part of his job). So a doctor can more easily get away with making unscientific decisions than a scientist.

This is a major, structural part of the problem. Another factor is that the minimal litracy training that's now a part of the medical curriculum is a relatively recent invention. There are also the problems of direct interaction between industry (or in this case, "industry", although alt med groups can be surprisingly organized) and clinicians.

tehllama posted:

The day to day of a good physician in any field involves staying up to date on the latest therapies, which comes in the form of reading papers and attending relevant CME's. There are physicians that don't but the majority do. I agree it is less critical to their job than that of a research scientist but it isn't unimportant.

The current CME structure is massively compromised and poorly complied with. Clinicians can attempt to stay up to date with "the latest therapies", but that has a number of problematic connotations, including a)what sources are provided to them for this information, b) how they select this information, and c)their ability to critically evaluate this information. Each of these parts of the learning process are targeted and exploited by those seeking to move physicians to particular therapies, medically legitimate or not. CME would work a lot better if it was practice-specific, meaningfully enforced, and not heavily subsidized by industry.

The system, such as it currently is, doesn't actually work. Editorial boards aren't a substitute for individual reader evaluation, and clinicians can't actually independently evaluate those articles- they don't have the training.

One way to look at this is in terms of variance. Most physicians will realize the problems with the chiro paper, but because they don't have the necessary/relevant literacy, more of them will be convinced by it when compared with people specializing in immediately relevant fields.

DreamShipWrecked posted:

True, but that's kinda of like saying that you don't have to know algebra because you work as a cook. While technically true, if you are unable to do at least basic stuff (like balance a checkbook/show that chiropractors are wack) then you are kinda still nonfunctional.

A key issue here is that, over time, the incentives have heightened the literacy requirement to the point where it's not tenable across all areas. Nowadays, the cooks are being offered recipes by vendors where the serving sizes are written in topology expressions.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Nov 9, 2014

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 18:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Spangly A posted:

Vox is pretty impressively wrong about everything and his argument that "no really there are valid arguments to banning assisted suicide its v complex guys I just can't provide any evidence" was great

I cited to Ezekiel Emanuel, who's the main authority writing on that subject in bioethics.

Spangly A posted:

Lol a loving commsci undergrad is seriously arguing he's better at papers than a doctor.

I'm a PhD student specializing in problems of scientific miscommunication among and between scientists and other professions.

disheveled posted:

Actually, Discendo Vox brings up some very good points, they're just totally out of left field. Clinicians as a population are embarrassingly bad at evaluating scientific literature, but it's irrelevant in this discussion, because this isn't "critical evaluation of the science," it's "common loving sense with a basic medical education."

I'd like the points to be irrelevant, but my belief is that the low level of literacy means that clinicians are more susceptible to even the trashiest sources. Importantly, DSHEA alt med groups are getting better and better at dressing up their products/beliefs in the language and trappings of the scientific literature. The very OP of this thread is a prominent example of this sort of phenomenon.

silence_kit posted:

Medical school is just job training for how to be a doctor. It's not the same type of education as a Ph.D. where you learn how to do research and are expected to read scientific literature to stay on top of what's going on in your field.

tehllama's earlier post was right- physicians are, in fact, supposed to stay on top of best practices, both from a top-down and a bottom-up perspective (the details of the top-down part, how this is enforced at the institution level, are outside my areas of research- something to get into after tenure, since I see it as a potential avenue for change). The difficulty is that they realistically can't, and often don't even try.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 9, 2014

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 18:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:

This is partially true, but and MD is also a masters of science based on human physiology. They don't really learn how to do research per se, other then some 6 months of research internships,( at my alma mater anyway) but reading of scientific literature to stay on top of what's going on in your field is mandatory for every doc and quite a lot of training is spend on how to do this correctly. Every doctor in training has periodic presentations for the faculty where they have to give a comprehensive review of the current literature on a certain issue, for instance the level of evidence for treating appendicitis with antibiotics (surprisingly effective).

That's a decent point, but there are defects in this system as well. Although it's nominally a requirement under the LCME standards, not all MD programs have the same degree of rigor in their research requirements (after all, not all medical schools are really research-driven institutions). This actually gives me the chance to share an example of the sort of problem I've witnessed in these curricula- I got to sit in on a couple of the presentations you mention, and what transpired was that the faculty also didn't catch the problems in the literature when the students repeated them. The problems can be self-perpetuating in this way; I understand there are some observational studies in the pipe to capture this, but there are obviously big method challenges for that sort of research at the best of times- envision researchers observing students reporting on research.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 19:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Spangly A posted:

Then I apologise and retract the insult, but now I'm not seeing an issue where Drs can't read papers properly at Ph.D level. Regulate clinicians better and let the med board deal with any nutjobs is surely the better solution than further barriers to entry for med students?

In the short and medium term the answer isn't clear- in the long term the answer is likely to be an intermediary authority that vets research and promulgates best practices top-down on an active, rather than passive or reactive, basis. This would also have the effect, with major benefits and major drawbacks, of severely limiting individual clinical discretion in diagnosis and treatment. My limited understanding is that such systems already sort of function in this role at the institution level- this would be moving that current process to the state and national level.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 21:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

silence_kit posted:

I'm sure that there have been theoretical physicists who are convinced that they've invented some new math thing only to find later that some math guy 50 years ago already did it. This sort of thing happens a fair amount, I think. Although admittedly, claiming that you have invented a technique in math that is covered in freshman calculus is a pretty extreme example.

I'm planning to develop a quantitative measure of this phenomenon in a couple years (tentatively, "scientific redundancy"). The problem is that a lot of the SNA statistical tools I need to capture it at the systems level haven't been invented yet.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 23:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

SedanChair posted:

...what do you think nutritionists study

"nutritionist" isn't a legally protected title in most of the US, so...nothing. "Dietitians" are a formally accredited profession in the US, although the organization is notoriously compromised by industry.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 23:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

tehllama posted:

It's my understanding that the purpose of pursuing MS's in nutrition science is for pursuing basic science research/industry jobs, not clinical.

That's usually correct.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 23:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

This thread is writing a part of my dissertation for me. Thanks in advance!

edit: the real fun begins when these papers get cited.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2014 00:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

tehllama posted:

I mean its the same as being a "biologist" or "chemist." Accreditation for a lot of basic science programs are provided as part of a university's accreditation process rather than at the school level.

What makes the nutritionist title unusual is that the title has formal accreditation status in some countries, and is frequently employed in a professional "clinical" context in the US by folks peddling alternative medicine. The reverse situation plays out in countries where "dietitian" is the unregulated title.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Nov 11, 2014

# ¿ Nov 11, 2014 00:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Main Paineframe posted:

Are doctors really particularly bad at evaluating scientific papers? There's plenty of biologists and other scientists who don't believe in vaccines and/or evolution, and I vaguely recall that even some Nobel Prize winners have succumbed to woo-woo bullshit. The problem here isn't education quality or specific education type, it's the more general fact that people won't let education or science get in the way of them believing whatever the gently caress they want. Being a research scientist doesn't make you immune or even resistant to the grasp of pseudoscience, and doctors seem no worse than any other highly educated person in that regard.

I agree with you- the problems of susceptibility to bad science are shared across all humanity. Usually, though, scientists with training in a given field are at least more resistant to the "woo-woo" in their field. The exceptions tend to arise when the scientist is a) very prominent, or b) in a field that's underdeveloped. These factors are related to other general literacy and error factors, but those go outside the alt-medicine setting of this conversation and into bad science in general.

The problem specific to doctors is that they're charged with overbroad responsibility and authority- folk intuitions of what doctors know or should have authority on are spread vaguely across all the areas of medical practice. The person in a white coat on TV selling us medication, the person ads tell us to "ask about" a specific medication, is rarely a field specialist. The demands on doctors are too high, and their field-specific knowledge in a given area is too low- meanwhile, doctors are sources of too much authority, in a setting where the stakes are tragically often too high.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 17:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

pangstrom posted:

it's not like eating the placenta or something weird like that, I should have said "banking cord blood". It's a semi-scammy thing where you can take stem cells out of the umbilical cord and store them to potentially treat your kid's illness in the future. I am no expert but my summary is: if you have tons of money sure fine knock yourself out but if you don't then don't worry about it. (I call it semi-scammy because: it's mostly extremely speculative, and a lot of the illnesses they advertise as potential treatments are GENETIC disorders and uh how exactly are those bad-gene stem cells going to help with that? Like you do gene therapy on the cells first?)

Gene therapy as a field of research is pretty much died out- there were several high-profile deaths, most famously a really terrible one at UPenn. More generally, the etiology isn't viewed as very promising anymore, since researchers now better realize that epigenetics is playing a massive role that isn't well understood.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2015 19:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

GreyPowerVan posted:

Well, IAMNOTADOCTOR, the more parents that go without vaccinations, the more likely a child is to die from it! How nice. (You are all still overstating the amount of children who would be separated from their parents over this --- over 99% of them would go along with the vaccinations)

Childhood obesity is a different case, in that it's widely... accepted? in the mainstream, and there is no political will to do much of anything about it. It's very bad for the children and likely will kill a VERY large amount of children before something, if anything, is done about it. I don't really know how to approach that right now.

If less and less people vaccinate their kids and a large number of them start dying from measles, does your position change?

That's not how the calculation works. It's not aggregate societal risk, it's risk to the specific child under analysis.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2015 22:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Main Paineframe posted:

I wonder if that's really politically possible right now. The growing prevalence of religious and now "philosophical" exemptions in schools didn't just spring up out of thin air - it's a political concession to growing numbers of highly opinionated antivaxxer parents with enough localized political power to push exemptions to mandatory vaccination policies. If it was ever possible to combat the modern antivaxxer movement with legislation alone, it's probably too late for that now. Maybe if it were federal legislation, it'd be possible, but it'd probably have to be a state law and there's at least a few states where antivaxxers definitely have the numbers and influence necessary to block or defang mandatory vaccinations.

Beyond politics, for the reasons Actus has discussed policies taking this tack are pretty directly not constitutional. The government has very little ability to directly intervene in the "raising of children"- it's the same reason there isn't a constitutional right to a good education, and why we can't ban charter and private schools.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 8, 2015

# ¿ Jan 8, 2015 19:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Solkanar512 posted:

I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that even if we can show that Parent A's inaction directly led to the child of Parent B to be infected, maimed or killed by a vaccine preventable disease that Parent A has no legal responsibility for damages.

The policy being discussed would be prospective, relating to the vaccination decision itself, not necessarily the results further down the line.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2015 20:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

GlyphGryph posted:

Could you legally quarantine individuals for not being vaccinated if there was an serious area outbreak of whatever it is they weren't vaccinated against (for so long the outbreak continued, since obviously the purpose of the quarantine would be to stop it from spread)?

Potentially, yeah, sure. There would be a lot going into the analysis, though.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2015 23:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Ignorance is no excuse for crime, dude.

Parents have gotten in trouble for killing or severely harming kids with vegan diets who legit thought it wasn't a problem, parental idiocy isn't a get out of ~punishment~ free card.

Ok yeah, you're really stupid, thanks for giving me permission. Just calling something civil commitment, again, does not mean it actually is.

And ps it is in fact still punishment.

I... I don't even...you understand that ActuRhesus is a practicing criminal attorney, right?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2015 01:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

I would add to that aggressive prosecution for docs who falsify research and non-doctors giving medical advise or physicians giving advise outside their area of certification. This would have to be done delicately, as there's fear in the research community of people using decertification as a means of silencing "unpopular" research, but I'd look into what could be done there.

In the medium to long term (depending on where I'm able to get research funding), this is one of my career goals, as a direct product of my doctoral research.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2015 06:20

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

I dunno, I think there's a place for some essential oil poo poo as long as you recognize what it can and can't do (and acknowledge some of it is probably placebo effect). I will rub peppermint oil on a sore shoulder, or take a eucalyptus bath if I'm sick, but I don't think peppermint can heal a torn rotator cuff or that eucalyptus will cure bronchitis. They just make me feel happy.

A fundamental ethical hazard is that these substances are being marketed as having a causal effect on the symptoms at issue; if a doctor were to tell a patient to take them to have that implied medical effect, it would be a serious breach of informed consent to care. Industries (in particular most of the dietary supplement industry) is built on exploiting this loophole. It's where structure function claims come from.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2015 23:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

torpedan posted:

Ebola is more of a special case though. It is very easy to make a claim saying that essential oils will cure a disease when the odds of actually encountering said disease are very slim. I do agree that there will be portions of the population that will never be swayed, but I do think there is a noteworthy segment that may be persuaded otherwise once the stakes are very high.

You may find research on persuasive messaging using fear appeals interesting, in this regard.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2015 21:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

How many anti-vaxxers have even met somebody that's had a horrifying disease? It's balls easy to convince people to start getting vaccines when hideous diseases are running rampant apparently but when they go away it's "well they just want to sell you vaccines!" Yeah and I don't want to have to worry about your unvaccinated child sharing their hideous diseases with my child, thanks.

This partially is also dependent on their preexisting beliefs- if the individual is already an antivaxxer, the disease can (as we've seen in this thread) make them double down on their prior beliefs. The proximity/apparent risk of getting the disease is also a factor.

The research I linked a bit ago discusses fear appeal persuasion in terms of "severity" and "susceptibility" of the danger involved in the appeal. Maxing these values out makes people start behaving very strangely in response to a fear message. At least some theorists think targets of fear appeals will effectively choose response behaviors or beliefs that will relieve the fear, rather than the risk- sometimes they try to stop learning about the danger to make themselves feel better- in other words, they avoid information about the danger rather than the danger itself. The uncertainty and probability calculations involved in vaccination are unfortunately probably a good setting to drive information consumers to this sort of "information retreat" behavior. When this phenomenon occurs is debated, and it's worth noting none of the research is all that solid- it's a really tricky area to theorize or collect data in. As you can imagine, it's hard to get a study involving this sort of thing through IRB.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 18, 2015

# ¿ Jan 18, 2015 21:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Actually, as someone who doesn't know much about vaccine development, do manufacturers have to do anything different when formulating a combined vaccine? Is there a potential for an interaction effect rendering it inert, for example?

vvvv Like, there are metric tons of problems with the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory capture and such, but in my experience studying these sorts of things, already approved vaccines are the absolutely least ethically problematic aspect of the entire field. Industry has virtually zero perverse incentive when it comes to post-market vaccine safety, reporting and regulation, compared with just about everything else they do.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jan 20, 2015

# ¿ Jan 20, 2015 19:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dirk the Average posted:

I would assume so, or there could be a larger chance of an adverse reaction, as there are occasional adverse reactions to vaccines. That being said, the FDA is so rigorous about this stuff that if it's on the US market and FDA approved, it's safe when prescribed by a doctor.

Oh, I'm absolutely not doubting safety or rigor. I'm actually really curious about the mechanism! It'd be good for this thread to also include really rigorous information on vaccine development, for those rare rhetorical situations where additional technical information actually helps.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2015 20:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

eNeMeE posted:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vaccine_rates_information_sheet.pdf

That's not what I...nevermind.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2015 23:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

PhazonLink posted:

Disney should use it's resources as a giant megacorp to make a pro vaccination campaign.Would do more good than those anti-bullying ones.(Which is a problem, but a smaller one.)

This would be a really good idea. I'm wondering if there might be a Carnival Cruise-style suit against the parents of the kids impending.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2015 23:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Aeka 2.0 posted:

I had a nurse suggest staggering and delaying som vaccines for my kids. I looked at her and said "no."
I'm loving amazed this even happened.

What I hate about myself, at times, is that I instinctively look for a valid rationale- "oh, there's a concern about an extreme allergic reaction to the suspensio-oh, google says the staggering thing is because of autism fears. Dammit."

Speaking of which, aforementioned googling turned up a Robert Sears, MD, out of (surprise!) California, as the origin of the staggering idea. Joy of joys, he's also a FAAP.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jan 22, 2015

# ¿ Jan 22, 2015 03:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

He's also the son of William Sears and works with daddy's practice in Orange County. I give you exhibit a that the "Sears Method" of attachment parenting leads to hosed up kids.

Another fun fact: they are big backers of the juice plus ponzu scheme.

We need to all band together, put our thinking caps on and figure out the whole CA medical license revocation thing. We could save a lot of lives.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2015 04:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

OwlFancier posted:

What is "attachment parenting" in this context? I assume it means something other than tethering your child to you with a rope or the general sense of emotional attachment between children and parents?

The child is placed in what is essentially a large food processor, mulched, juiced, run through a filter, and then injected into the parent's reproductive organs so that they can take a second shot at the whole thing.

Wikipedia has a decent summary, although it's too neutral in tone. What I'd stress is that the whole thing is completely unscientific, but wraps itself up in scientific rhetoric and invalid sources of evidentiary proof. In particular, "attachment parenting" should be understood as distinct from, but falsely claiming the authority of "attachment theory" in developmental psychology, which is not looking so hot itself these days anyways.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2015 17:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Main Paineframe posted:

According to the link you posted, it's not "because of autism fears" so much as it it "because people stopped vaccinating due to autism fears". Your link, at least, suggests that staggered scheduling is something Sears offered up as a compromise position to skittish parents that otherwise might not vaccinate at all, and is designed (using real medical knowledge about the vaccines and the diseases they combat) in order to increase risks of infection and sickness as little as possible. If he was pushing it on everyone who walks through his door it'd be a bad thing since it does present some risks over the traditional vaccination schedule, but your article suggests he came up with it exclusively to appease vaccine skeptics and convince them to vaccinate their children, which makes it a good thing. And the risks are pretty slight anyway as long as herd immunity (which staggered scheduling doesn't really damage) holds up.

I'd buy that if he hadn't published a book promoting it.

Johnny Cache Hit posted:

Dad is pretty explicitly pro vaccination:

http://www.parenting.com/article/ask-dr-sears-vaccinationimmunization-concerns

quote:

Perhaps the one-size-fits-all vaccine policy may not sit well with every family, yet it's prudent to have an overall vaccine policy. It's best to discuss your individual concerns with your child's doctor, though, since there may be medical and lifestyle circumstances within your family that warrant individualizing your child's vaccination schedule.

He's talking out of both sides of his mouth to maximize his client base.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2015 18:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Armani posted:

I totally forgot Carnival Cruise was a thing, and looked up lawsuits.

Is, uh, this what you were referring to because holy gently caress

http://news.injuryattorneyfla.com/2014/04/disney-cruise-line-crew-member-arrested-charges-molestation.html

Nah, I was referring to a contract law class standard, Carnival Cruise v. Shute. Basically, if Disney's attorneys were really on top of things, the parents may have violated part of the contract they signed to get into the amusement park. Like the licensing agreements that people click through to get their software installed, buying a park ticket is effectively your signature on a lengthy contract with the mouse.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jan 22, 2015

# ¿ Jan 22, 2015 19:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Elderbean posted:

The comments section for the onion article is littered with poo poo like this.

It's actually a very telling comment- the author treats both "nature" and "pharma" as almost completely unknown black box quantities, with few discernible features. This is what low-information logic motivated by a fear response looks like.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2015 19:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

As a veteran turned "navy wife" all I can say is I loathe most military spouses. My husband keeps threatening that he will sign me up as command ombudsman. I respond by threatening divorce. Because having to spend any more time around those batshit ham beasts than absolutely necessary is my personal vision of hell.

O God, it would be incredible. :allears:

please do it. The resulting A/T thread would be extraordinary. "An attorney among the housewives"- maybe "hambeasts in the mist".

# ¿ Jan 25, 2015 17:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

no. god, no. hahahahahahahahaha.

no.

"dispatches from the back"

"not exactly Spartan"

C'mon, I have a hundred of these. Doooo itttt. You could write a tell-all book! Take a one-year leave from practice and live among them.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2015 06:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leo Showers posted:

While I'm not a psychologist, and this comes with the caveat that i'm an undergrad, whatever constitutes "Reactive Attachment Disorder" appears in both the ICD-10 and the DSM-5, so it probably constitutes a "legitimate" diagnosis, however if it's been diagnosed by someone not qualified to be diagnosing then yeah.

Also re: Darcia Narvaez chat, it appears from my (brief) canvas of her research indicates she's very much into Kohlbergian-style moral development, of which, in my opinion, is more of a historical curiousity because of it's flawed conception and Western-centric focus. I'e placed a hold on the book she co-authored regarding Neo-Kohlbergianism, so I'll get that in the next day or so and write a trip report somewhere (probably in the psychology thread). I really can't comment on her research holistically because I'd have to read some of them so I'll totally do that when I can dredge enough care, but I can't really fault anything from looking at her purely academic work.

A considerable amount of the stuff in the DSM V isn't empirically supported to a very high standard- the document needs to be understood as the product of an ecology of lobbying that includes both clinicians and industry, whose motives align in adding to and expanding the scope of diagnoses, with relatively little resistance from within the academy. It's part of why senior team members involved with every edition have inevitably turned around and condemned the document almost immediately after its release. RAD has one of the worst reputations in terms of criterion and scope ambiguity in the whole thing, though it's not as harmful as other ill-defined disorders with an associated set of pharmaceutical solutions.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2015 06:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leo Showers posted:

Yeah look I almost omitted mentioning DSM 5 all together because of the very well documented issues with it. I was more referencing it's presence in the last two editions of both the DSM and ICD-10.

Also there are methodological concerns regarding a diagnosis for RAD, I mean the DSM critique is valid but it's also a pretty lazy, as you can't really argue with what you are saying because, yes, there are some pretty blatant issues with DSM 5 in particular.

I'm not trying to jump down your throat by any means, but that said, I gotta admit, I was talking DSM generally- Caplan, Spitzer, etc. I understand the documents are necessary, and the standard of proof can't be as high for the purposes of developing care standards for mental illness, given the empirical obstacles, but at the same time the field generally needs to develop better institutional barriers to abuse, and recognize that "in the DSM" and "a disorder that we have treatment and procedures for" aren't synonymous with "thing that actually exists".

# ¿ Jan 26, 2015 07:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Laphroaig posted:

Legal Question:
Service members are required to have vaccinations. Would it be possible for them to opt out for religious reasons?

With the caveat that I Am Not a Lawyer, they probably can't opt out. The only sources discussing opting out are, of course, anti-vaccination websites, so while they say there is a religious belief exemption, there probably isn't in this case. Try here for more information.

edit: with additional research, the religious opt-out may be available, but probably only if you make that request before you enter active service. If accurate, this would be an effective bar under almost all circumstances- you'd have to know the policies in advance to opt out. This is far outside my area of knowledge, though- ActusRhesus?

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jan 26, 2015

# ¿ Jan 26, 2015 22:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

Please forgive typos. Using tablet with toddler "helping"

I can't believe you let your child use one of those things. Don't you know what's on them?!?

# ¿ Jan 27, 2015 00:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 20:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

What's next? Saints Row? LoL?!? Won't someone think of the children????

# ¿ Jan 27, 2015 03:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-vaccination movement!

«‹›5 »