It makes sense. People are visual creatures, and natural story tellers (and listeners) so sometimes showing the horrors of these issues and weaving it into a story is the best way to convince large amounts of people and bring attention to an issue.
It makes sense. People are visual creatures, and natural story tellers (and listeners) so sometimes showing the horrors of these issues and weaving it into a story is the best way to convince large amounts of people and bring attention to an issue.
People need to stop believing that it's a personal choice for them alone. That is no more true than if they were to go around blowing cigarette smoke into the faces of other people. It's anti-social behaviour and even worse, the consequences are potentially deadly.
Case in point, tobacco companies sponsoring anti-smoking ads because talk of smoking increases revenues for the smoking industry as a whole. Instead of trying to advertise themselves individually.
Remember that the economic theory isn't a morality code; it doesn't say what the individual should do. It says that, people being what they are - that is, not always the kind and generous beings we wish they were -, how can we set up things so that general welfare is increased.
And in this case, the part of the economic theory that you're referring to that would lead to vaccination is not the profit seeking but property rights: in theory, if you go around infecting people when you could have vaccinated yourself, they should be able to get compensation for it.
Will that solve the problem in this case? Probably not, but then again, which system has a better one? Forced vaccinations don't sound better to me.
In a free market, the manufactures would have to improve the product to the degree that the consumers are convinced it is safe, and if injury is proven in court they would be held liable. Therefore there would be a profit incentive to fix the very issue at the center of the anti-vax argument.
Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud.
How is it that a non free market has more incentive for safety? Who is accountable today? As I stated, currently law protects the producers against injury claims, so what is the mechanism and incentive for enforcement?
The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.
So yes, this would be the role of the FDA. However, the effectiveness and willingness of the FDA to take such action, not just against vaccines but any drug product, is a subject of much controversy. Just search Vioxx and FDA. That case doesn't present a reassuring view that safety issues are handled in the way you would expect.
Also, the FDA doesn't conduct its own independent testing. They require companies to do the testing and submit the results. It is certainly not the best designed system.
The difference between a perception of safety and a perception of unsafety is usually anecdotes.
> Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers?
To prevent lawsuits from the .0001% of "[s]evere allergic reaction[s]"[1] from convincing the manufacturers that a low-profit-margin product is not worth the effort to produce.
P.S. When you write, "...in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud", you need to be careful. "Fraud" is a very fuzzy concept.
[1] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/dow...
It wasn't "personal choice" or "religious exception." They had a bad experience and were scared away.
I don't know if those terms are justified, but if they are then that's rather different from "two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine."
One thing we need to educate people about is that just because you get sick after getting a shot doesn't mean the shot caused you to get sick, and that even if it is, an occasional bad reaction is worth it if the rate is sufficiently low and the consequences sufficiently mild.
There is no shortage of educated doctors, former employees of drug companies, and data from CDC etc that is used for the anti vax argument. To convince someone of a point, one needs to not start from the position the other person has any of these stereotype labels. You need to start from educating yourself of their opposing argument and realize it is supported by real data. Then the discussion becomes more appropriate around the validity of data, its interpretation etc.
1. They cause autism.
2. They contain nasty, toxic chemicals.
3. They are unnecessary.
4. They are unsafe (in some unspecified way) and are just pushed for profit by big pharma.
The only one that comes even close to being supported by data is #1, and that's completely fake data.
I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evidence they have acquired in short posts.
You post all of these are false, yet you post no data either. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you are reading blogs and message posts they don't often come with evidence.
One of the key criteria for effective debating is to first attempt to convince yourself of the opponents argument by researching it from their perspective. Actually seek out the evidence to prove their point. What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie.
Bottom line, if you can appear more knowledgeable of their perspective, they are more likely to listen to what you have to say.
You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is bad in all circumstances and you'd be mad to put it in your children.
The fundamental problem is that people don't know how to think. They don't know how to differentiate between "this vaccine contains small amounts of aluminum which is harmless for the following reasons" and "this vaccine contains aluminum, which is known to cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease."
Maybe I do need to appear more knowledgeable of their views to be convincing. But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not.
But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc.
My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always ignorant, uneducated or just following Jenny McCarthy etc. You will find plenty of doctors, neurosurgeons etc that also have issues with vaccines. Dr. Wakefield became famous for the autism issue; however, you should be aware that since then there are many educated doctors that find some issue with vaccines. Of course being a doctor doesn’t make you automatically correct, it is just once again being aware that the person you are debating may have what appears to be credible information.
It would be best to ask where the person is coming from in a non hostile way. Just ask, so what have you discovered and what led you to your decisions for example. That is friendly and opens up conversation. From then you can discern if this person made decisions based on credible sources ( but maybe not accurate ) or they have not actually educated themselves.
When I say credible sources, I mean to say at least they are referencing other doctors, scientists, studies vs some blog. Credible in this instance doesn't necessarily mean correct or wrong, but acknowledging they did their research will allow conversation to continue. Then you can share counter research etc as conversation progresses.
Just be aware, within the scientific community, these topic still are being researched and it is not as if they are completely closed. For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. Being aware of such is always a plus when having such discussions as you will appear to at least know something about where they are coming from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
So? There are further investigations into whether climate change is real and man made, when the overwhelming evidence point to - yes and yes.
It's same with this thing. One douchebag claims Vaccines caused autism, twenty three works then disprove his claims.
If you go to sciencedaily you can find plenty of studies that raise many questions about the nature of climate change.
An intellectual debate requires one to not simply dismiss the other side outright. If your goal is to piss people off and to have your base cheer on, then by all means go ahead. If you want someone to listen to you and your goal is to educate, then you will not get very far with your approach.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv...
In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this:
For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference an article that is more of a summary, and complain that it shows no data. In fact, the real Verstraeten study, published in Pediatrics, included all of the data. The Geiers absolutely cherry-picked a short summary of the Verstraeten study rather than examining the fully published article.
It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like. You need to always dig deeper for the rebuttals of both sides of an argument.
Its quite easy to recognize, just see who funded the study and you see a trend of results supporting the funder.
Almost nobody takes the time to investigate a study. You are assuming the person knows the study is flawed to begin with.
How do you know the critique of a study is accurate? The critique deserves as much scrutiny as the original until it can be verified. Otherwise it would be cherry picking data to simply stop when we find an answer that fits our beliefs without doing the same investigation of its statements and sources.
You think I haven't asked people where they're coming from in a non-hostile way? I've had tons of non-hostile conversations about this stuff.
If you want to present some data for that side, then I'd be happy to see it. Otherwise, stop insisting that it must somehow be there, because as far as I can tell it's not, and I'm not just assuming this is the case.
I mean I'm not here to try to convince you of their argument. However, the 1 pubmed article I referenced mentioned there are over 165 studies supporting issues with mercury in vaccines. Is this not interesting data? The researches behind the article seem to think so as their objective is to undercover why there are discrepancies with these results vs those that have said there are no issues.
I mean it takes time to follow all this stuff. Certainly more than I have, yet with a little effort it seems easy enough to see the source of information is not all coming from some personal blogs as I just pointed out.
In any case, you might recall that I said I'd never seen any data for these arguments except for the supposed autism link, which is based on fake data. Considering the tone of the paper I think it might be in that category. Maybe not. I'll hold off on spending time investigating until some anti-vaxxer actually mentions one as support for their ideas, because "X argues Y" and "there's data to support Y" does not imply "X argues Y because of data supporting it."
I doubt the manufacturer would place such a warning unless they had data to back it up.
Data? Yes. Usable? No.
----------------
> What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie.
People tried that, and there was no evidence. I mean autism caused by a vaccine... Suuuure. Only way if that happened if someone REALLY botched up the vaccine, as in forgot to make a vaccine and just put measles inside it. If that happened you'd be reading it on news channel by now.
I mean it causing autism is a perfect way for parents to remove guilt from themselves. It's not my genes - it's the vaccine. If I was a parent I'd be jumping on that particular train as well. Nothing so far corroborates any claims made by anti-vaccination groups.
That said, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat to the public and I do think you should be banned from public schools, public transportation, public gatherings and should have to explain to anyone you physically interact with that you are a risk to them and their family.
We should be showing anti-vaxers the error of their ways using facts, debate, and the truth. Forcing it on them only increases their distrust and helps sway others to their side.
I'm not saying it would be a net good or a net bad, but it would presumably save a number of lives. This might still be a net bad with the increased distrust and loss of choice and all that, but I don't think it's at all fair to say that "nobody" would benefit. For example, those with weakened immune systems who for some reason cannot be vaccinated would probably benefit greatly. Again, I'm not saying the answer is or isn't to force them, but it's not because nobody would benefit.
Science has to fight an uphill battle, because facts and statistics are cold, whereas a single story of "my kid got sick right after being vaccinated and what if that happened to your kid?" is emotive and provocative.
A documentary telling the other side of the story in a way that most people can relate to it emotionally could have a huge impact. No need to make anything mandatory if people understand the balance of risks properly.
>That said, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat to the public and I do think you should be banned from public schools, public transportation, public gatherings and should have to explain to anyone you physically interact with that you are a risk to them and their family.
Not following what you're proposing. You don't want people forced to be vaccinated, yet you want to forcibly confine them to their homes? What if they don't comply and get on a bus/subway/train/plane or go shop at a supermarket? Forcibly throw them in some special jail just for them?
I say supervised interactions with society is a very sane compromise for people who pose a danger, but may still have something to offer. As opposed to outright killing them.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-b...
I am, sadly, not optimistic that this would help.
The anti vaccine crowd, much like other groups and belief systems (even ones you and I might be part of) are as much a statement of politics and self actualization as they are of any rational belief system.
The "facts" are simply after the fact justifications, conveniently chosen, to bolster their existing viewpoints.
So, no, unfortunately, I don't think a better presentation of the facts is going to change a lot of these minds.
I don't get the impression that the documentary watching crowd overlaps with anti-vaxers too much.
So we tried that approach. What now? Maybe address this on a deeper level like better grade school and high school education. For example, we can see a lot of our public schools are unionized, which often means bad teachers and poor performers are impossible to fire. Outcomes get worse and big city high schools like in Chicago and NYC float around a 60% graduation rate. Would the left who is championing the vaccine cause be willing to go against its own unions to make schools better? I doubt it.
I really don't believe the TV tells people what to do. It often reflects whats already out there. Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey and others didn't start the anti-vax movement - it was in full swing by the time they latched onto it. Unless you're willing to do proper grassroots work, its just not going to happen. That means solutions that upset the status quo like attacking teacher unions. Or discriminating against un-vaxxed kids and not letting them go to school. I can't see the activist left doing that either. Would you be able to accept a better vaccination rate if you worked hard at it every single day, but only are planning on seeing results in 10 or 15 years? How motivated would activists, especially internet slactivists, be with a long range plan like this?
Personally, I see this as largely unstoppable. Social fads and mores follow a pendulum shift. Right now we're deep into homeopathic, anti-vaxx, etc territory. People are starting to feel the burn of it (dying kids, chronic illness, etc) and will naturally swing the pendulum back the other way once they're properly disincentized by their medical issues. Documentaries, celebrity endorsements, etc won't change a thing. This is largely a chaotic process that needs to play itself out. Its a conversation happening in every office, every daycare, every mothers group, etc and we really can't penetrate it, the same way the skeptic movement never penetrated religion or those who believe in the paranormal. If anything, belief in the paranormal has skyrocketed since Sagan's and CSICOP's loudmouth skeptic movement. Laying down the facts is only one part of trying to implement social change. I wish more people understood that.
So we're probably fucked.
There are groups of people who will go so far as to claim religious exceptions to vaccines for their children.
It's worth a shot, though. I'd watch it.