|
I have a relative who is hardcore anti-vaccine. She is opposed to all forms of Western medicine. I'm not sure her children have ever seen a doctor. Her last pregnancy she had two twins delivered breech. It would have been illegal to home birth them in the state she lives in due to the elevated risk. So she searched on the internet for a couple in a neighboring state that would let her deliver them at their home. She ended up traveling there to give birth. She received all kinds of "cred" in the online communities she's a member of for not going to the hospital despite her risky pregnancy. This is only half of her craziness, but it underscores how the anti-vaccine movement is part of a broader anti-medicine movement, and for many people it is an essential part of their identity. These people derive their social esteem from having such outlandish beliefs. That makes it particularly difficult to change their minds. I also think these views would have a lot of difficulty spreading without the internet making it possible for anti-vaxxers to reinforce each other's opinions.
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
King of Hamas posted:I am 100% for vaccines that have proven medical value, and am concurrently against any that lack it, and as a result I am anti-flu vaccine. It is a product made and pushed by for-profit corporations and study after study has shown that they range from marginally effective to totally ineffective. Legitimately objective medical science should be respected, but for-profit products pushed by for-profit companies that are proven to be dubiously effective according to the objective (ie; non industry-funded) research should absolutey not. If you doubt me, go ahead and do your own research, but I would recommend steering clear of studies funded by the very companies that stand to make the most money from a positive outcome. For example, here is the Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit medical research group based on unpaid volunteers from the medical community, on the issue: I got the flu vaccine this year because I was working with immunocompromised children. My girlfriend got very sick with the flu, which was serious enough to cause her to make a trip to the doctor due to respiratory issues. She ended up being in pretty rough shape for two weeks, and had to take a few days off work. I, on the other hand, despite being near her and having every opportunity to catch it from her, developed only a generalized immune response, which consisted of a slightly running nose for 24 hours. I never got sick, and I have a pretty weak immune system. The year before that my girlfriend had gotten the flu shot and I had not. I ended up getting the flu and being sick for three weeks, while she remained healthy. This experience is sufficient that we'll both be getting the flu vaccine from now on. Of course, this is all anecdotal. It could be we just got lucky when we didn't get sick, or it could be that she and I respond particularly well to the flu vaccine. But the evidence supports the claim that it works at least some of the time. Also, you should not completely disregard corporate-funded research into the vaccine's efficacy. Instead, you should weight that research in such a manner that takes into account the potential conflict of interest. The problem with just ignoring that data is that you are cherrypicking, and also shrinking your sample size, thereby making it less representative. By the way, the fact that corporations make money off the flu vaccine is not really a concern to me, as it is free with my insurance. Why do you think my insurance would provide a vaccine free of charge? The answer is that their actuaries have determined the company will save money by getting more people vaccinated, as it will result in less trips to the doctor. This means there are people who've spent many hours researching and doing the math who found the flu vaccine prevents enough people from getting sick that it is worth providing it without charge. While the flu vaccine is not 100% effective, it reduces your chances of getting the flu significantly. There are certain groups (the very young, old, healthcare workers, and immunocompromised) who should always get the vaccine. But I'd also recommend it to people who tend to get sick easily and have lifestyles or jobs that bring them into contact with a lot of other people. If you don't want to get the flu shot, though, I'm ok with that. That said, I feel there is a moral imperative to get your children vaccinated. The parents who don't are hoping to exploit the herd immunity that our society has developed to prevent their kids from getting sick without risking the side effects of a vaccine (and there are some rare but serious side effects). That is what I consider a leech on society. And I know kids who can't get vaccinated because they are going through chemotherapy, so the rest of us have to do our part to get our vaccines and not present a risk to those who are most vulnerable. I dont know posted:
In the case of my relative, that's a good way of putting it (anti-vaccine being part of a wider pathological lifestyle). I'm not sure how much this extends to other anti-vaxxers, but I get the impression those sorts of people are attracted to an alternative way of thinking because it makes them feel special and in-the-know. These people are very knowledgeable in their own demented way. If I were to go point by point with this family member over any of these issues she'd have a response to each point, and it would be clear she had done her research. The only caveat would be that her research was limited to what she could find on websites that supported her point of view. So instead of looking at primary, peer-reviewed literature, she will have read a bunch of articles from the anti-medicine echo chamber. I believe this is one symptom of a larger loss of faith in our institutions. People don't trust our government, churches, corporations, etc, and this extends to our medical institutions. They will cite the profit motive of hospitals as evidence that doctors cannot be trusted. But this ignores the fact that most doctors really want what is best for the patient, and they are experts in what they do. Also, in the case of my relative, she is totally blind to the incentives that practicioners of alternative medicine have. The last time her kids got really sick she took them to be cupped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupping_Therapy). I seriously doubt she considered the possibility that the person performing this might just be doing it for money. Sidenote: if you bring your child into the ER with cupping marks, they will report you to child services. forgot my pants fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
enbot posted:Not to pick on you but this is basically how anti- vaccine people exist, one anecdote means absolutely nothing. I also have to emphasize that your last part is completely impossible for the average person- you need at least a graduate degree in relevant fields to even begin to objectively evaluate the literature on these subjects and unless it's your job there's no way you'd have enough time to do so. That's why I said it was anecdotal. But the anecdote fits the data and has a plausible mechanism, so I'm comfortable sharing it. I agree that the last part is impossible for the average person. I certainly couldn't do it properly so I trust the experts. Edit: enbot posted:Really the best the average person can hope to do is observe that the vast majority of papers are published show evidence towards the efficacy of vaccines, much like global warming. Like I said, even the average doctor doesn't have the training to analyze medical studies like some here are suggesting people do. I agree with you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I doubt there's a serious anti-vaccination contingent among actual doctors, but I've been surprised before. I don't think many doctors buy into anti-vaccine arguments, but with healthcare being increasingly focused on patient satisfaction, you will see less doctors bringing up the topic of vaccination or less forcefully discussing it when they know the parents are against vaccines.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Edit: polio was never eradicated like small pox, just contained. Now even that may be impossible. The real bummer is polio was supposed to have been eradicated by 2010. I believe the UN and WHO both set this as their target goal some time back. Then as 2010 approached they delayed it a few more years, and now it looks like polio may not be eradicated in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 23:49
|
|