JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 21st February 2008, 06:16 AM   #1
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Antivaxers do it again

What would a parent think if they read the following statement:
Quote:



The Journal of Infectious Diseases published Prevention of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) meningitis and emergence of serotype replacement with type a strains after introduction of Hib immunization in Brazil in January 2003 which had findings of:
The incidence of Hib meningitis decreased 69% during the 1-year period after initiation of Hib immunization (from 2.62 to 0.81 cases/100,000 person-years; P<.001). In contrast, the incidence for H. influenzae type a meningitis increased 8-fold.
Therefore, Hib immunization contributed to an increased risk for H. influenzae type a meningitis through selection of circulating H. influenzae type a clones.
I imagine any reasonable and reasoning person would think "Wow, immunisation against Hib is not a good thing to have, if it increases the incidence of the the disease!"
The argument is based on serotype replacement - something we have discussed here before in connection with Prevenar/pneumococcal vaccine.
I discovered this claim while perusing a new website called "Inside Vaccines" - a forum for parents from parents (Yup, we all know where this one is headed...)
I post the info here because I am increasingly annoyed at just how far the antivaccine lobby is prepared to go in order to counter the use of vaccines. In this case they have deliberately made it seem that vaccine is harmful. In the medical world, this would be not only morally reprehensible, but medico-legally criminal behaviour.
The article abstract in full says the following:
Quote:
Surveillance for Haemophilus influenzae meningitis cases was performed in Salvador, Brazil, before and after introduction of H. influenzae type b (Hib) immunization. The incidence of Hib meningitis decreased 69% during the 1-year period after initiation of Hib immunization (from 2.62 to 0.81 cases/100,000 person-years; P<.001). In contrast, the incidence for H. influenzae type a meningitis increased 8-fold (from 0.02 to 0.16 cases/100,000 person-years; P=.008).
Pulsed-field gel electrophoretic analysis demonstrated that H. influenzae type a isolates belonged to 2 clonally related groups, both of which were found before Hib immunization commenced. Therefore, Hib immunization contributed to an increased risk for H. influenzae type a meningitis through selection of circulating H. influenzae type a clones. The risk attributable to serotype replacement is small in comparison to the large reduction in Hib meningitis due to immunization. However, these findings highlight the need to maintain surveillance as the use of conjugate vaccines expands worldwide.
The selective removal of vital information (highlighted by me in red) by the "Inside Vaccines" team distorts the entire findings of the paper, and is designed to fool readers into thinking the opposite of what the article actually concludes.
I haven't had time to look at much else on this new anti-vaccine site, but I fear the worst. I am all for parents geting information - knowledge is vital and informed parents are the best kind. But it is so sad to see the depths to which the antivaxers will sink in order to push their agenda.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 21st February 2008 at 06:18 AM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2008, 08:03 AM   #2
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 17,920
I only found out about the Hib vaccine last week. I really wish it had been around when I was little, since it also prevents one of the major causes of middle ear infection, which I had a big problem with.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2008, 10:45 AM   #3
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
As a junior doctor I saw lots of HiB meningitis. Nothing now. It was nasty stuff.

If someone wants to expose a vaccine scandal/conspiracy, then they could do worse than look into the reasons behind the delay in introducing infant HiB vaccination in the UK. There was a perfectly good vaccine available, being widely used in Europe and Scandinavia. It reduced HiB deaths to almost zero in those countries.

Did the UK introduce it?
No.
The Dept of Health delayed for a couple of years in order to get their own vaccine production on-line and to run their own tests (like they were going to show anything different?)

In that time, dozens of kids died from HiB.
Bloody disgraceful.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 21st February 2008 at 10:45 AM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2008, 11:29 AM   #4
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Will all the vaccinations I've had be in my medical record?
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2008, 03:32 PM   #5
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,297
Don't bet on it! My mother and I recently changed medical practices because we moved house. She was due her flu jag. When the new practice heard we were living together they said they wanted to do me too. So there we were, in the surgery, and the nurse had all the records.

According to the records, Mum had never had the pneumococcus vaccine. She had had it, she remembered, and I remembered her telling me about it at the time (about two years previously). Her records were wrong.

The nurse obviously wanted to do someone, so she did me for pneumococcus just because I was there!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2008, 03:33 PM   #6
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,297
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
As a junior doctor I saw lots of HiB meningitis. Nothing now. It was nasty stuff.

If someone wants to expose a vaccine scandal/conspiracy, then they could do worse than look into the reasons behind the delay in introducing infant HiB vaccination in the UK. There was a perfectly good vaccine available, being widely used in Europe and Scandinavia. It reduced HiB deaths to almost zero in those countries.

Did the UK introduce it?
No.
The Dept of Health delayed for a couple of years in order to get their own vaccine production on-line and to run their own tests (like they were going to show anything different?)

In that time, dozens of kids died from HiB.
Bloody disgraceful.

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.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 12:33 AM   #7
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
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.
Who's he?
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 22nd February 2008 at 12:34 AM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 12:44 AM   #8
Asolepius
Graduate Poster
 
Asolepius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,170
Deetee, this is the usual problem of relative versus absolute risk. Not only that, but yesterday I read an excellent article about odds ratios and now know how these are misinterpreted. For example, Avandia (rosiglitazone) has had its sales decimated by reports of an odds ratio of 1.43 in favour of increased cardiovascular events. Although this obviously doesn't mean there is a 43% chance of getting a heart attack from taking Avandia (although no doubt some of the media expressed it like that), it doesn't even mean that the relative risk is 43% higher either. In fact the increase in absolute risk ranges from 0.07% in one trial to 0.41% in another. This is for a drug which greatly reduces the risk of diabetic complications by controlling diabetes far better than sulfonylureas or metformin.

The problem is that most people (like me!) have difficulty with numbers and are ripe for exploitation. If most people really did understand risk, lotteries would be impossible to run.
__________________
No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Blog - Majikthyse
Asolepius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 01:08 AM   #9
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 16,856
So is Inside Vaccines just like JABS, or does it have fewer paranoid conspiracy theory rants?
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 07:51 AM   #10
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,136
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
I am all for parents geting information - knowledge is vital and informed parents are the best kind. But it is so sad to see the depths to which the antivaxers will sink in order to push their agenda. [/indent]
http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/fin...=HPV4&DIED=Yes

Yes, but the same can be said for both sides.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 10:08 AM   #11
JQH
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
So is Inside Vaccines just like JABS, or does it have fewer paranoid conspiracy theory rants?
Also, do the antivax posters get their "facts" from whale.to and do the mods consider advice like "talk to your doctor" to be disruptive Big Pharma trolling?

Last edited by JQH; 22nd February 2008 at 10:09 AM.
JQH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 10:15 AM   #12
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,136
I'm getting ready to go undercover at some antivaccine sites. I will let you know.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 10:45 AM   #13
Asolepius
Graduate Poster
 
Asolepius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/fin...=HPV4&DIED=Yes

Yes, but the same can be said for both sides.
Sorry, but I really can't see your point. All that we know from these 12 reports (of which one has no data whatsoever and concerns 2 anecdotal cases) is that the patients had HPV4 vaccine and died from a wide range of apparent causes (and in one case no apparent cause). Are you saying that someone is manipulating these data?
__________________
No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Blog - Majikthyse
Asolepius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 01:16 PM   #14
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Originally Posted by Asolepius View Post
Sorry, but I really can't see your point. All that we know from these 12 reports (of which one has no data whatsoever and concerns 2 anecdotal cases) is that the patients had HPV4 vaccine and died from a wide range of apparent causes (and in one case no apparent cause). Are you saying that someone is manipulating these data?
In fact one case did not have gardasil, but meningovax.
Causes of death seem varied. Commonest is blood clot/pulmonary embolism, not unusual in young women, particulary with other comorbidities. I think it has been established that the deaths are not higher than the anticipated background.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 01:21 PM   #15
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Originally Posted by Asolepius View Post
Deetee, this is the usual problem of relative versus absolute risk. Not only that, but yesterday I read an excellent article about odds ratios and now know how these are misinterpreted. For example, Avandia (rosiglitazone) has had its sales decimated by reports of an odds ratio of 1.43 in favour of increased cardiovascular events. Although this obviously doesn't mean there is a 43% chance of getting a heart attack from taking Avandia (although no doubt some of the media expressed it like that), it doesn't even mean that the relative risk is 43% higher either. In fact the increase in absolute risk ranges from 0.07% in one trial to 0.41% in another. This is for a drug which greatly reduces the risk of diabetic complications by controlling diabetes far better than sulfonylureas or metformin.

The problem is that most people (like me!) have difficulty with numbers and are ripe for exploitation. If most people really did understand risk, lotteries would be impossible to run.
Quite agree.

I would like to see a further analysis of "vioxx" data, actually. Upper GI bleeding from nonsteroidals are one of the commonest causes of drug related death. I wonder how many people who switched away from coxibs like vioxx went on to have a significant/fatal GI bleed, because they took NSAIDS instead? It's a trade off of one side effect versus another.

Also rather like many of the OCP scares, where women stopped the pill suddenly, only to get pregnant (which not only was undesired, but runs a massively higher risk of events like blood clots compared to the pill itself).
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 22nd February 2008 at 01:23 PM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 01:22 PM   #16
Asolepius
Graduate Poster
 
Asolepius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
In fact one case did not have gardasil, but meningovax.
Causes of death seem varied. Commonest is blood clot/pulmonary embolism, not unusual in young women, particulary with other comorbidities. I think it has been established that the deaths are not higher than the anticipated background.
Yes, exactly my assessment. Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you were implying that the pro-vaxers were sinking to the same depths as the antis.

ETA: Sorry Deetee, just realised I am replying to you not to robinson (Friday night and I have some very nice Courvoisier in front of me).
__________________
No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Blog - Majikthyse

Last edited by Asolepius; 22nd February 2008 at 01:29 PM.
Asolepius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 01:49 PM   #17
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 43,019
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
I only found out about the Hib vaccine last week. I really wish it had been around when I was little, since it also prevents one of the major causes of middle ear infection, which I had a big problem with.
I'm not sure without looking it up but I'm pretty sure if you had H-flu otitis media it would have been a single occurrence. Multiple ear infections would likely represent different strains of pneumococcal infections. However, we have a vaccine that now decreases those infections as well.

With the introduction of H-flu vaccine, cases of H-flu meningitis almost stopped completely. What a shame people looking for information that supports their beliefs rather than looking at what the research shows can distort the information on the H-flu study.

We had a discussion on the forum as well over an increase in one strain of pneumococcal infections when the vaccine was introduced. Yes, eliminate the competition and non-covered strains can emerge. But that can be managed with simply increasing the strains covered in the vaccine. And in any case, even emerging non-vaccine covered strains are rarely going to rise to causing the level of invasive disease of the vaccines strains initially covered.

In the case of antibiotic resistance, you are treating an actively multiplying colony. There is a greater chance of resistance emerging. With vaccines, you are preventing the colony from beginning in the first place. There is less chance of resistance emerging. For this reason it's preferable to use vaccinations, not to mention you prevent illness before it happens rather than treating an infection after it begins.

Drug resistance developing from vaccinations is by far less of a problem than not vaccinating and trading for antibiotic or antiviral drug resistance instead. The only reason one would see vaccine resistant strains emerging is because you eliminated known pathogenic strains. In the case of H-flu and pneumococcal infections, antibiotics can be used to manage emerging vaccine resistant strains until they can be covered with revised vaccine formulations.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2008, 03:28 PM   #18
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,136
Originally Posted by Asolepius View Post
Sorry, but I really can't see your point. All that we know from these 12 reports (of which one has no data whatsoever and concerns 2 anecdotal cases) is that the patients had HPV4 vaccine and died from a wide range of apparent causes (and in one case no apparent cause). Are you saying that someone is manipulating these data?
I'm getting ready to point out lot more than that. There is woo woo afoot, and I am about to the bottom of the mess.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 05:47 PM   #19
MinorityView
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
So is Inside Vaccines just like JABS, or does it have fewer paranoid conspiracy theory rants?

I went and checked it out. No paranoid conspiracy theory rants. They do say this: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?page_id=71
Quote:
We want to hear from you!
We welcome comments about our content and will be delighted to correct any errors that you point out. Just share your sources and explain where we went wrong. If we disagree with your conclusion we’ll be happy to share our sources and explain where you went wrong.
They've been publishing for over a month now and nobody seems to be trying to straighten them out.

Latest article is here: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=86

a little skit with expectant parents asking a doctor questions about the vaccine schedule.
MinorityView is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 07:03 PM   #20
MinorityView
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
What would a parent think if they read the following statement:
I imagine any reasonable and reasoning person would think "Wow, immunisation against Hib is not a good thing to have, if it increases the incidence of the the disease!"
The argument is based on serotype replacement - something we have discussed here before in connection with Prevenar/pneumococcal vaccine.
I discovered this claim while perusing a new website called "Inside Vaccines" - a forum for parents from parents (Yup, we all know where this one is headed...)
I post the info here because I am increasingly annoyed at just how far the antivaccine lobby is prepared to go in order to counter the use of vaccines. In this case they have deliberately made it seem that vaccine is harmful. In the medical world, this would be not only morally reprehensible, but medico-legally criminal behaviour.
[indent]The article abstract in full says the following:
The selective removal of vital information (highlighted by me in red) by the "Inside Vaccines" team distorts the entire findings of the paper, and is designed to fool readers into thinking the opposite of what the article actually concludes.
I haven't had time to look at much else on this new anti-vaccine site, but I fear the worst. I am all for parents geting information - knowledge is vital and informed parents are the best kind. But it is so sad to see the depths to which the antivaxers will sink in order to push their agenda.
Ah. Interesting. Conclusions aren't actually data, you know.

You left out another abstract which is quoted in full on insidevaccines and which says:
Quote:
In addition to the proportional increase in cases of nontype b Haemophilus influenzae disease in the post H. influenzae type b vaccine era, the incidence of invasive H. influenzae disease was found to be approaching the rates of H. influenzae type b disease that were documented in the prevaccine period. Fifty-six percent of invasive disease now occurs in individuals aged >10 years.
If you just look at Hib vs. HiA and ignore the fact that there are other Hi types that also fill in the gap then everything will be hunkydory. But there are those other types...and everything is not hunkydory.
MinorityView is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 07:12 AM   #21
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
Ah. Interesting. Conclusions aren't actually data, you know.
....and the data don't agree with your conclusions either.

Quote:
I went and checked it out. No paranoid conspiracy theory rants.
Hang on.... are you just pretending you have only just discovered the "Inside vaccines" web site as a result of this JREF thread?

I assume you are the same "Minority View" that has been promoting this website on JABS since the 1st February. You also posess intimate knowledge of which specific articles are due for posting on the site, so I conclude the site is actually yours. To suggest, 35 days later, that you have only just gone and "checked it out" is an example of the dishonesty that pervades the site.

On the web site you are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines in a totally dishonest way, by cherry picking and misquoting to support your antivaccine agenda. I have nothing but disdain for people like you.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 5th March 2008 at 07:14 AM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 05:42 PM   #22
MinorityView
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
....and the data don't agree with your conclusions either.

Hang on.... are you just pretending you have only just discovered the "Inside vaccines" web site as a result of this JREF thread?

I assume you are the same "Minority View" that has been promoting this website on JABS since the 1st February. You also posess intimate knowledge of which specific articles are due for posting on the site, so I conclude the site is actually yours. To suggest, 35 days later, that you have only just gone and "checked it out" is an example of the dishonesty that pervades the site.

On the web site you are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines in a totally dishonest way, by cherry picking and misquoting to support your antivaccine agenda. I have nothing but disdain for people like you.
Okay, I admit it that my remarks above were slightly deceptive and I'm sorry. However, I didn't use the word "just" as in just checked it out. So I wasn't actually being dishonest, just omitting a few things. Well, a lot of things.

Insidevaccines is run by a group. Last time I checked there were about 35 of us. Individuals write articles, but they are fact-checked and proofread and sometimes rewritten by others in the circle. I have indeed been promoting the blog on Jabs. Why? Because we would like to get some people who favor vaccines to tell us where we are going wrong. Same reason I came here and offered up the quote about wanting corrections. Truthfully, I'm getting very frustrated by all the people who run around denouncing anyone who criticizes vaccines. None of them are capable of coming over to our simple little blog and telling us where we screwed up.

Thousands of people are reading our articles. More every day. We constantly get feed back like: "This is a great blog. So glad I found it. Obviously carefully researched. Will share it with others."

You found something which you feel is an error. I pointed out that you are not looking at the entire spectrum of bacteria in question. Okay, I'm wicked scum. No problem. I agree that my behavior was dishonest, inappropriate and sneaky. You are right to call me on it. Now, how about dealing with the problem of serotype replacement? Even better, how about coming over and posting your response on the blog, where it will do some good against all those poor parents who are being deceived by those wicked anti-vaxers? I can assure you, very few of them come and read here.

We are all hoping that some smart people will come and visit insidevaccines...but we've been disappointed before. The pro-vaxers don't seem to know what to say about our blogs, so they either pretend we don't exist, or else pull one item out of context, distort it and yell "see, aren't they bad!" Just like you did.

If we are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines it should be easy to show where we are wrong. Please do so. We promise to give you a fair hearing, to admit it if we are wrong (just as I did here) and to correct any errors or misstatements.

Sigh. All bluff and no delivery. Just like a few guys I've known over the years who talked a good game, but get them horizontal and they just couldn't...
MinorityView is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 07:00 PM   #23
biostudent
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
Because we would like to get some people who favor vaccines to tell us where we are going wrong. Same reason I came here and offered up the quote about wanting corrections. Truthfully, I'm getting very frustrated by all the people who run around denouncing anyone who criticizes vaccines. None of them are capable of coming over to our simple little blog and telling us where we screwed up.
I had never heard of your site until this thread. I read the linked article about the pregnant mother and father visiting with the doctor. OK, here is one absolutely exhausted person's take on this: (warning: I'm really tired )

The article was very leading. That is, almost right from the start, the wording chosen seems to be designed to lead the reader to conclude that the doctor is basically crazy. The reader is supposed to sympathize with the parents. That is problem number 1 for me. Basically, it's incredibly biased. It's not an article meant to educate, but rather an article meant to cheer on those who are already on your side.

Problem number 2 is that at first the doctor's comments seem very realistic. But at one point, they change into something completely unrealistic. She goes from providing good answers to basically behaving like a spoiled brat. I don't know any doctors who behave like that. Some may have huge egos and may be real jerks, but you portrayed her as being stupid and childish, and that's different, to me. You play up the education of the parents and make the doctor look stupid. Let's be realistic, here. Not everyone can get a medical degree... (not that there are no stupid doctors, mind you. But in your article, you really make it excessive. Also, I know that there is a really pervasive belief that doctors are dumb and that everyone knows more than they do, and frankly, I'm tired of it.)

You missed out on a great opportunity. Your article could have explained why it's good to vaccinate babies. Basically, it helps develop their immune systems by giving them some challenges and it keeps serious disease low (that's called establishing herd immunity). You could have explained why vaccines get repeated, which is that we've learned that only giving one shot doesn't always confer immunity into adulthood.

Oh and you quote the doctor as saying that they need to stay focused on public health. That's true! You missed another opportunity to remind readers that establishing herd immunity is very important and that we must all do our part to help others who are at risk. When you take your baby in for vaccines, it is not just about protecting your own baby, but about protecting others as well.

Good night.
biostudent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 07:48 PM   #24
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 43,019
I don't know what nonsense is being said about HiB vaccine but I can tell you the vaccine has almost eliminated invasive HiB disease.

What other HiB strains would you be referring to Minority View?
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 01:25 AM   #25
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,537
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
If we are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines it should be easy to show where we are wrong. Please do so. We promise to give you a fair hearing, to admit it if we are wrong (just as I did here) and to correct any errors or misstatements.
In the the rather biased article "Close encounters with the vaccine schedule" the first comment lists all the ingredients injected into a child's blood. Perhaps you could correct this as this seems to be a perpetuated misunderstanding. No vaccines are injected intravenously, they are given intramuscularly or orally or subcutaneously where they are then engulfed by antigen processing cells which then migrate to the local lymph nodes. The vaccine components never get into the blood stream.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 04:28 AM   #26
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
Okay, I admit it that my remarks above were slightly deceptive and I'm sorry. However, I didn't use the word "just" as in just checked it out. So I wasn't actually being dishonest, just omitting a few things. Well, a lot of things.
OK, understood.

Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
Insidevaccines is run by a group. Last time I checked there were about 35 of us. Individuals write articles, but they are fact-checked and proofread and sometimes rewritten by others in the circle.
And what is the "mission statement" of your group? What is it's underlying agenda?

If it is to provide objective information to parents about the benefits and disadvantages of vaccines you are woefully failing to do this. Can you tell us about the background of the contributers to the group? Would it not be useful information for parents to know? If you provide information for parents it is only correct that they know who they are getting it from.

Each opinion piece from InsideVaccines is biased against vaccination.
We read that doctors are pigheaded and dogmatic in their approach to parents' questions about vaccination (not true in the majority of cases).
We learn that vaccines have side effects (without hearing about their established benefits).
We read of unintended consequences (such as serotype replacement) without gaining any realistic/honest perspective on how relevant or infrequently this happens.
We read about patients developing infections despite vaccination (with no explanation being given as to the reasons why this might happen, and no indication given as to the numbers who never got the infection at all because of vaccination).
We read that most people in the USA are not at risk of the infections that are on the childhood vaccination schedule (with no acknowledgement that this is mainly because immunisation has been so effective as to make these infections rare)

All these things we read may be "true", but they consist of fragments of information deliberately cherry-picked from medical articles that are taken out of context and misquoted, all with the aim to present vaccination in a bad light to the reader. They are also presented in a way that makes it clear to me, as a medical person, that the author has had difficulty grasping many of the basic medical, epidemiological and scientific concepts.

This is not a morally acceptable way to provide information on vaccines, and might well encourage a parent to avoid vaccination, at the later cost of their child's health and life.

I have not considered going over to InsideVaccines to pick up your challenge - my view would be that it would be like trying to argue with the JABS crowd - most posts contrary to their religion are deleted. The trouble is that if I pointed out errors in presentation and emphasis I would be compiling responses to virtually everything on your site, and there are other things to do in my life. There is always the risk of quickly getting drawn into abtruse discussions about eg pneumococcal serotypes that could not be easliy followed by parents reading the discussion forum, and they would just conclude that there are sciency things people argue about, without being able to or bothered to follow the argument.

Final question: Would you let a medic/scientist contribute to your group by writing an article on the benefits of vaccination?
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 06:27 AM   #27
MinorityView
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by biostudent View Post
I had never heard of your site until this thread. I read the linked article about the pregnant mother and father visiting with the doctor. OK, here is one absolutely exhausted person's take on this: (warning: I'm really tired )

The article was very leading. That is, almost right from the start, the wording chosen seems to be designed to lead the reader to conclude that the doctor is basically crazy. The reader is supposed to sympathize with the parents. That is problem number 1 for me. Basically, it's incredibly biased. It's not an article meant to educate, but rather an article meant to cheer on those who are already on your side.

Problem number 2 is that at first the doctor's comments seem very realistic. But at one point, they change into something completely unrealistic. She goes from providing good answers to basically behaving like a spoiled brat. I don't know any doctors who behave like that. Some may have huge egos and may be real jerks, but you portrayed her as being stupid and childish, and that's different, to me. You play up the education of the parents and make the doctor look stupid. Let's be realistic, here. Not everyone can get a medical degree... (not that there are no stupid doctors, mind you. But in your article, you really make it excessive. Also, I know that there is a really pervasive belief that doctors are dumb and that everyone knows more than they do, and frankly, I'm tired of it.)

You missed out on a great opportunity. Your article could have explained why it's good to vaccinate babies. Basically, it helps develop their immune systems by giving them some challenges and it keeps serious disease low (that's called establishing herd immunity). You could have explained why vaccines get repeated, which is that we've learned that only giving one shot doesn't always confer immunity into adulthood.

Oh and you quote the doctor as saying that they need to stay focused on public health. That's true! You missed another opportunity to remind readers that establishing herd immunity is very important and that we must all do our part to help others who are at risk. When you take your baby in for vaccines, it is not just about protecting your own baby, but about protecting others as well.

Good night.
The content of the discussion with the doctor was based on actual experiences of some of the parents who help with the blog. We had to eliminate a lot of actual quotes from doctors, because no one would believe them. There is a great thread in the archives of the vaccine forum at that place where you get banned as trolls (I'm not going to name it) where hundreds of moms describe what happened to them when they told a doctor they didn't want to vaccinate their child. We mostly couldn't use those experiences, either.

Two of my associates were so enthused by your contributions that they incorporated them into the blog article. They added both of your suggestions. Thanks for the help and the thoughtful critique.
MinorityView is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 06:29 AM   #28
MinorityView
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
I don't know what nonsense is being said about HiB vaccine but I can tell you the vaccine has almost eliminated invasive HiB disease.

What other HiB strains would you be referring to Minority View?
You want to discuss this? Read the blog articles. Post comments. There are a whole bunch of our members who would love to respond to a reasoned critique of our material.
MinorityView is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 06:37 AM   #29
MinorityView
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
OK, understood.



And what is the "mission statement" of your group? What is it's underlying agenda?

If it is to provide objective information to parents about the benefits and disadvantages of vaccines you are woefully failing to do this. Can you tell us about the background of the contributers to the group? Would it not be useful information for parents to know? If you provide information for parents it is only correct that they know who they are getting it from.

Each opinion piece from InsideVaccines is biased against vaccination.
We read that doctors are pigheaded and dogmatic in their approach to parents' questions about vaccination (not true in the majority of cases).
We learn that vaccines have side effects (without hearing about their established benefits).
We read of unintended consequences (such as serotype replacement) without gaining any realistic/honest perspective on how relevant or infrequently this happens.
We read about patients developing infections despite vaccination (with no explanation being given as to the reasons why this might happen, and no indication given as to the numbers who never got the infection at all because of vaccination).
We read that most people in the USA are not at risk of the infections that are on the childhood vaccination schedule (with no acknowledgement that this is mainly because immunisation has been so effective as to make these infections rare)

All these things we read may be "true", but they consist of fragments of information deliberately cherry-picked from medical articles that are taken out of context and misquoted, all with the aim to present vaccination in a bad light to the reader. They are also presented in a way that makes it clear to me, as a medical person, that the author has had difficulty grasping many of the basic medical, epidemiological and scientific concepts.

This is not a morally acceptable way to provide information on vaccines, and might well encourage a parent to avoid vaccination, at the later cost of their child's health and life.

I have not considered going over to InsideVaccines to pick up your challenge - my view would be that it would be like trying to argue with the JABS crowd - most posts contrary to their religion are deleted. The trouble is that if I pointed out errors in presentation and emphasis I would be compiling responses to virtually everything on your site, and there are other things to do in my life. There is always the risk of quickly getting drawn into abtruse discussions about eg pneumococcal serotypes that could not be easliy followed by parents reading the discussion forum, and they would just conclude that there are sciency things people argue about, without being able to or bothered to follow the argument.

Final question: Would you let a medic/scientist contribute to your group by writing an article on the benefits of vaccination?
Okay. I understand where you are coming from. I think it is unfortunate, because a real, scientifically based debate on vaccination would be helpful to both sides. We would love to see this discussion move above and beyond the cliched accusations that are bandied back and forth and address the science.

We will not delete comments we disagree with. We will reply to them. If someone points out an error we will correct it.

I'm going to end my membership here at Randi. Nice talking to y'all, but I've got to get on to my next task.

Farewell
MinorityView is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 07:10 AM   #30
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,236
I'm curious as to why a series of articles written by people without the requisite knowledge and experience to fully understand the subject is to be considered as a useful source of information? Why bother helping fix a flawed article when good quality information is already available? Helping parents distinguish reliable sources of information from the merely biased is (I think) a more fruitful endeavour. Based on the contents of that blog, I highly doubt that you are sincere.

Linda
__________________
God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion.
Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader
SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine)
Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny
When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 11:03 AM   #31
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
I'm going to end my membership here at Randi. Nice talking to y'all, but I've got to get on to my next task.

Farewell
So..... unwilling to answer even a simple question, huh?
Time for a bit of deja vu, surely?
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
Sigh. All bluff and no delivery. Just like a few guys I've known over the years who talked a good game, but get them horizontal and they just couldn't...
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 6th March 2008 at 11:05 AM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 12:13 PM   #32
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,537
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
Two of my associates were so enthused by your contributions that they incorporated them into the blog article. They added both of your suggestions. Thanks for the help and the thoughtful critique.
Pity you have gone MV. You can quite easily discuss vaccines here as well as the InsideVaccines site. Anyway, has anyone found where the contributions have been incorporated into the blog article? I couldn't find them.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 02:13 PM   #33
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps
Posts: 13,928
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
I'm getting ready to go undercover at some antivaccine sites. I will let you know.
Please do, I'm happy to provide Calymore mines at no cost.
__________________
Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted:

It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 02:36 PM   #34
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,798
I've just been looking at their introduction thread.
Someone says this:
Quote:
Hi, I'm Fyrestorm. I'm a WAHM of an almost 4 YO completely unvaxed and intact DD.
I thought she said unwaxed initially, which might have explained why she's intact (despite being a tempting "DD")
Anyone know what this code says?
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 6th March 2008 at 02:37 PM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 04:17 PM   #35
biostudent
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
I've just been looking at their introduction thread.
Someone says this:

I thought she said unwaxed initially, which might have explained why she's intact (despite being a tempting "DD")
Anyone know what this code says?
I think DD means Dear Daughter. Also I've seen a lot of anti-vaccination people refer to unvaccinated kids as intact. It's a bit bizarre. Anyway, other things like DD are DS (dear son), DH (dear husband), and things like that. It's usually women saying these things on sites with tons of women, so I rarely see DW (dear wife) although I have seen it.

edit: oh and WAHM probably means work at home mom. Not exactly sure on that one though. You usually see SAHM (stay at home mom) so this one must be self employed.

And I know these things from having once hung out on baby sites, ahem.

Last edited by biostudent; 6th March 2008 at 04:21 PM.
biostudent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2008, 04:19 PM   #36
biostudent
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
Anyway, has anyone found where the contributions have been incorporated into the blog article? I couldn't find them.
It's still dated Feb 28th, so... I have a bad feeling that it will stay that way.
biostudent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2008, 03:07 AM   #37
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 43,019
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
You want to discuss this? Read the blog articles. Post comments. There are a whole bunch of our members who would love to respond to a reasoned critique of our material.
I'll get around to your page soon. But you are asking me to look at a bunch of things people think they understand. I know what the stats are on HiB invasive disease. I have had my own practice specializing in infectious disease for 17 years. I have been giving vaccines for 30 years. And I make every effort to read volumes on vaccine research, the ACIP guidelines and supporting evidence, the controversy and so on. You think providers are dumb? Do you think we are lazy? Do you think we are duped? Do you think we are in on the Big Pharma conspiracy? Think only drug companies fund research? Think every public health organization in the world are also oblivious to the risks and benefits of vaccines but a handful of people who have drawn conclusions from a tiny itty bitty fraction of evidence have it figured out and the rest of us can't see it?

I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread, you are willing to let a neurologist cut into your brain if you needed it but you think the same person couldn't evaluate vaccine risks and benefits?

Think about, MV. Do you really think 8+ years of college, a number of years in an internship and dozens of years of experience doesn't prepare a health care provider to make an intelligent assessment of the risks and benefits of vaccinations?

I wonder how many people saved from invasive cancer or brain aneurysms would think their health care provider couldn't properly assess the risks and benefits of a vaccine?
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2008, 03:39 AM   #38
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
I wonder how many people saved from invasive cancer or brain aneurysms would think their health care provider couldn't properly assess the risks and benefits of a vaccine?
It's an interesting dissonance. If mistrust arises when we attempt to second-guess others (and seemingly form different conclusions), and our willingness to second-guess depends upon the apparent simplicity of the issue (whether a drug works appears simpler than the formulation of a path integral), we have a situation where the more complex an issue appears to be, the less likely we are to mistrust those same experts that can't be depended upon to tie their shoes.

Linda
__________________
God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion.
Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader
SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine)
Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny
When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2008, 04:27 AM   #39
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Britain, near the middle
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by fls View Post
It's an interesting dissonance. If mistrust arises when we attempt to second-guess others (and seemingly form different conclusions), and our willingness to second-guess depends upon the apparent simplicity of the issue (whether a drug works appears simpler than the formulation of a path integral), we have a situation where the more complex an issue appears to be, the less likely we are to mistrust those same experts that can't be depended upon to tie their shoes.

Linda
Or control their weight. Or not smoke. Or not drink alcohol to excess. Or eat a balanced diet. Medical professionals make sub-optimal health decisions just like the rest of us.
__________________
My Blog.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2008, 04:39 AM   #40
Beth
Philosopher
 
Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Flatland
Posts: 5,373
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.
__________________
Beth
"You are not the stuff of which you are made."
Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html
Beth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.