Fraud That Inspired the Anti-Vaccination Movement

 

Any time there is an article about vaccine initiatives, a segment of the public begin to shout about government conspiracies and their perception of nefarious science. What is behind the anti-vaxxer movement? I will eventually write a post on the sociology of why this movement has gained support and what can be done about it, but for now I reproduce my comments from another thread filled with these conspiracy theories (http://goo.gl/KqwiVk). My post below presents scientific evidence about the fraud that inspired the anti-vaxxer movement.

Going Back to the Source

The science demonstrating that there is no link between autism and vaccines is peer-reviewed and well-established (for example, see here). The original paper that made the assertion that such a link existed was retracted by the original publisher, The Lancet, due to fraud by Andrew Wakefield and his team.

People who are convinced that vaccines cause autism have never read the original article that made this outlandish claim, let alone understand the science and its motives. For example, the fact that the study used a sample of only 12 boys; that the methods and conclusions were falsified; and most importantly, that Wakefield had a financial interest in making his fraudulent claims. He was funded by lawyers who were engaged in a lawsuit against vaccine companies. The retraction can be clearly seen on the original paper. The original retraction states, “no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient.” 

Fraud Origins of the Anti-Vaxxer Movement

It is rather ironical that some people imagine there is some financial or political incentive amongst scientists to support vaccines. This is simply not true. Science supports the use of vaccines because they save lives. This is the official position of the World Health Organization (WHO), which has dispelled the myth that there is a link between autism and vaccines. Instead, the WHO shows that vaccines prevent up to 3 million deaths annually, for 25 otherwise lethal diseases

The public needs to better understand the that the fraudulent science against vaccines is actually motivated by profit. Lawrence was charged with ethics violations and scientific misconduct. His team was found guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts).”

Conspiracy Theories & Anti-Science

People who believe in conspiracy theories do so due to lack of education on particular subjects, and they are heavily influenced by political ideology, rather than scientific facts. People who disbelieve scientific evidence in favour of conspiracy theories overwhelmingly seek out random statements that support their personal beliefs, but these people do not engage with scientific evidence that contradicts their personal values

There is no grand scientific conspiracy behind vaccines. There is, however, only, lack of valid data, hyperbole and scaremongering behind those who want to argue otherwise. The roots of the anti-vaccine movement are firmly tied to fraud motivated by financial gain. All that the anti-vaccine movement does is continue the greed of one disgraced man who was exposed for being unethical many years ago.

Learn More

On scaremongering:

Debunked myth linking mercury in vaccines to autism:

  • Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Cohort analysis of 1.3M children and control case studies of 9.9K children finds no link between vaccines/mercury to autism.
  • Thimerosal in Vaccines Questions and Answers. Showing mercury has not been included in vaccines since 1999 and there was no proof prior to this mercury caused neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. 

Image: World Health Organisation.

75 thoughts on “Fraud That Inspired the Anti-Vaccination Movement


  1. Thank you Zuleyka Zevallos, I was reading Chad’s post earlier today (also the one about Ms. Gates comment ) and was amazed at the anger displayed by the anti vaccine bunch.


    I think I must have blocked a dozen people. It’s sad really.


    And Bill you are absolutely correct, it is maddening.

    Like


  2. What’s worse is that we have a chance to eradicate diseases such as pertussis and measles but the anti-vax stupidity is bringing them back instead. 15 years without measles in the USA and now outbreaks. It is maddening.

    Like


  3. Stopped Dam Stopped, with they let DRs go out USA to west Africa Ebola the most deathly disease of all ,ad they let in back in to USA why do we have help everybody is not enough, what is going on in here USA who help us nobody and everybody goes to help people that are already dead, why they don’t give woman birth control pills, or surgery that will be better poor women, man gets hard on, there they go get pregnant, they have no choice not even abortion, why do u a loud DOCTORS get in and out with that epidemic that is death for sure, let start thinking about Us United State of America… First that why all the others Country think we are so stupid and is true we are…..

    Like


  4. sissi tsombanidis Trolling science posts seems to be hobby of yours. Given you’ve engaged in death threats on the other post I linked to, it’s very strange to see you play the pre-emptive victim here, particularly since none of the comments have engaged in the behaviour which you indulge in so readily. When you present credible, peer-reviewed science you we will all gladly listen. Here, you are simply on the defensive, sparring with wilful ignorance rather than engaging with facts.


    You’re entitled to believe your conspiracy theories, but as I’ve shown, this is nothing less than a lack of education on the science of vaccines. The World Health Organisation is the leading international medical body. Their resources, which are free and linked to in my post, clearly show scientific evidence of why immunisation reduces needless deaths of millions of people. I hope you will take full opportunity to become educated on this topic. Google+ has many experienced scientists who take the time to answer the public’s questions, as many of us have done in the other post. This does not mean we should put up with your abuse and derailment. 

    Like


  5. While drops in vaccination rates are troubling, particularly as much of it seems to be motivated by folks being uninformed or misinformed, I think we must take care in how we frame our counterarguments.  If we’re up against vague statements, fuzzy logic, and vilifying, then we won’t be served by tossing back the same to our opponents.  For example, it isn’t precise to say that measles is being “brought back”, much less that un-vaccinated people are bringing it back (although they are some of the reason — but not all of it — behind the recent record US outbreak).  This CDC FAQ is very helpful in considering this matter:  http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/faqs.html


    Why is it important to be precise? Because vilifying parents who don’t vaccinate their children, for example, doesn’t inspire those same parents to hear reason about vaccines.  And because taking what’s admittedly a very bad epidemic and stating that it marks the full-blown return of a once much deadlier disease sounds very much like the same scare-tactics that the over-zealous vaccine critics use.  It would be better, I think, to remind people that, according to the CDC, two-dose vaccination against measles is 97% effective in preventing the disease even if you’re exposed to the virus.


    There’s much “anti-science” out there, as Zuleyka Zevallos is often gracious enough to sensibly point out.  But we can only succeed against it, I think, if cooler heads prevail. 

    Like


  6. Chad Haney Thanks for the denialism link; I hadn’t read it. I’ve now added it to a resources section in my post with other links. I will deal with the anti-vaxxer denialism in a later post. Need to set aside time to be trolled. 😉

    Like


  7. Thanks for your comments Jonah Miller and Michael Rainey. The sociology of anti-vaxxers  is really interesting. The key to undoing the damage of this movement is to understanding their concerns and unpacking their narratives. Anti-vaxxers tell stories that are emotional (protection of their own children) and centred on autonomy (democratic right to refuse to vaccinate). The evidence suggests that education and policy interventions need to target those individual narratives and shift the focus to public health. The WHO writes: “As with disease itself, the prevention of anxieties about vaccines is better than cure.” (http://goo.gl/Ku4mxo)


    More later!

    Like


  8. William Wright Thanks for your comment. No one on this thread has vilified parents (even though anti-vaxxers have been on the offensive all day here and on other threads as Chad Haney points out). I agree that understanding parents’ concerns about vaccines is central to refocusing education and health programs (see my comment above). The science denialism that motivates anti-vaxxer parents speaks to broader issues of science literacy and trust in science. The good news is that education can help.

    Like


  9. There is an old word that describes some people.


    A mumpsimus is an action by a person who adheres to a routine, idea, custom, set of beliefs, or a certain use of language that has been shown to be unreasonable or incorrect


    If I see that a person is a mumpsimus I usually just block them.


    The other old word that comes to mind is:


    Makebate


    1.


    a person who causes contention or discord.

    Like


  10. Zuleyka Zevallos  I hadn’t intended to imply that anyone explicitly vilified parents in this thread.  The suggestion, though, that the elimination of measles from the US is being reversed by people who don’t immunize (and, let’s face it, we mostly mean here people who don’t immunize their children) often leads to vilifying the parents of un-immunized children, if that vilification isn’t already implied.  Certainly one could understand why those parents might feel vilified and alienated by such a suggestion.  So it seemed like a relevant topic to bring up in my comment. My apologies for the confusion.  It wasn’t my intention to offend you, Zuleyka, or any of your G+ followers.


    But it is, as you say, encouraging that education helps.  It demonstrates that not all of the people who struggle with the choice to immunize are unreasonable zealots and, perhaps, those of us who are passionate about this topic need not feel compelled to spend so much time and emotional energy trying to convince unreasonable zealots.  Plenty of reasonable people are ready to hear facts delivered in a calm, non-alarmist way.

    Like


  11. Chaplain Bob Walker B. Th. Isn’t it convenient that wide sweeping statements that present zero factual evidence ignores the content of the post, which is about the financially-motivated fraud that led to anti-vaccination scaremongering in the first place?


    The anti-Semitic vitriol on your personal stream is just charming. Good luck with peddling your racist, sexist rapture. Very productive to your cause.

    Like


  12. george sindeband Mercury in vaccines. It’s as if you have some pre-conceived political ideology that illustrates the science I addressed in my post about conspiracy theories, and which simultaneously compelled you to ignore science in this thread that has already addressed this point. 


    “cross dna from aborted fetus and tainted virus material” This sounds very serious indeed. The minute you produce peer-reviewed science that does not link to some random video, we’ll get riled up about this aborted foetus business.


    Your thread is filled with a delightful mix of racism, religious intolerance and anti-science. Keep fighting the good fight against those corporate trolls though. They’re not like those regular trolls that derail civil discussions about science and the garden variety trolls that spread intolerance. 

    Like


  13. I agree with the approach of William Wright above.  Vilification is not a persuasive technique.


    Measles is a serious illness, a fact which many have now forgotten.  Which doesn’t make them evil.   Recently, there was an outbreak of measles near me,  on the Washington State – British Columbia border.  This was based in a group that opposed vaccination for religious reasons.    The method of public health outreach that proved effective in containing this involved aggressive tracking of the whereabouts of all known measles carriers.  This created headlines, as the Disneyland case is doing today, that raise public awareness.  That effort was coupled with assurances to the group in question that they could quietly bring their non vaccinated children into clinics to be vaccinated, without fear of recriminating questions as to why they had waited until now.   That way they could do it without the knowledge of their friends and religious leaders.   Perhaps such clinics are needed in places like Marin County as well.  


    The Public Health officers on both sides of the US/Canadian border also went to great lengths to avoid confrontations with the religious leaders.   This denied those leaders media publicity along the lines of our media’s tendency to give “both sides”.


    I think that one of the lessons of Andrew Wakefield is how an adept charlatan and media manipulator can use the creation of a firestorm of criticism against him as the very vehicle to keep himself in the headlines and to further his own cause.


    But digging deeper, I think that we also need to highlight the importance of ongoing vaccine research.  We should be supporting, and doing, more ongoing research, not only on older vaccines such as this, but also proactively for emerging diseases such as Ebola, for which vaccine development clearly lags the need.


    As something that actually accentuates the importance of immunizing children to create as high a herd immunity among them as possible, I think it is important to investigate  the longevity of the measles vaccine.  It is known that the modern Whooping Cough vaccine did not confer lifetime immunity and boosters were needed.  And thus, blaming that outbreak on anti-vaxxers was ineffectual.  In fact, the last time (in the 1990’s) when there was a measles breakout, a second booster shot was added.  The measles vaccine is now 50 years old.  It may be that some of us older than that are unknowing carriers. 


    “Although public health officials have assumed that measles immunity lasts forever, the case of Measles Mary highlights the reality that “the actual duration [of immunity] following infection or vaccination is unclear,” says Jennifer Rosen, who led the investigation as director of epidemiology and surveillance at the New York City Bureau of Immunization.”


    http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time


    And:


    “. It remains then an open question as to whether the current vaccine is sufficiently immunogenic and efficacious to allow eradication – even though measles can be controlled, and even eliminated in some regions for defined periods of time.”


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/.

    Like


  14. Off-topic comments will be deleted (xaedmon) and abusive/derail commenters will be additionally blocked. 


    My threads are like a dinner party – informed debate and civil questions are welcome, but abusive and disruptive guests are never tolerated. 

    Like


  15. Gaythia Weis The approach you describe along the Washington border sounds very helpful, thanks for telling us. Local outreach efforts that are inclusive are ideal. Again, however, no one on this thread has engaged with vilification of families, and most importantly, my post (and body of research) advocates education, not exclusion. Doubtless there is ongoing research that should continue on immunisation (no one on this thread has claimed otherwise). Thanks for your comments!

    Like


  16. I’m closing comments for now and will reopen later when I have the time to address discussion. For now, I leave you with an empirical insight about the sociology of anti-science (my post linked above). Research shows that people who feel most threatened by science, are most likely to seek out information and public conversations that contradict their world-view. This is specifically the case when scientific evidence is tied to personal beliefs and identity. People who reject scientific evidence do so because they are defending deeply-held values and they are expressing their desire not to see their world change. Fear of loss of status is part of what fuels distrust of science. (“I make decisions about my child’s health.” “The government can’t tell me what to do.” “I’m scared for my family and I want to be in control of what happens to them.”)


    People who don’t feel strongly about a topic can be persuaded to change their minds when the science is explained in lay terms, but they are unlikely to speak up if they don’t believe that those science conversations directly impact them. This is why the loudest voices seem so angry and resistant to change. They drown out the undecided and disengaged.


    I am confident that with interdisciplinary efforts, scientists can bring together different sets of empirical knowledge that can better educate the public. We can start by focusing our main efforts on addressing misconceptions on immunisation (and other pressing social and scientific issues) and finding new ways of demonstrating how these issues impact on our collective wellbeing. I’m grateful that so many of you have joined in on this discussion from such different disciplines and perspectives.

    Like


  17. The science on both sides of the argument are motivated by financial gain. The reason the argument exist is because there is not enough and reliable science on this. Attacking peoples intelligence because they conclude differently from you does nothing to further the cause. What you see as reliable information is not reliable to others. There is obviously “the truth” and acceptance from both sides depends on reliable evidence. I don’t think it’s surprising that people refuse to believe the science that is generated by Pharma given their dubious track record and I don’t think it’s surprising that pro vaxers believe others are wrong for not believing the existing science.


    Settling this difference of opinion requires a broad and truly independant study to find the truth. Until then it’s up to individuals to make up their own mind and do as they see fit (assuming they live in a country where they are free)

    Like


  18. Too bad that you did not read this post John Sekouras but decided to try out for the conspiracy Olympics. To qualify you must provide peer reviewed evidence that speaks to my post, which is on the scientific fraud that fuels the anti-vaxxer movement. Your comment is left as a reminder to today’s commenters that claims against scientific evidence require credible scientific sources. Fare thee well. 

    Like


  19. Zuleyka Zevallos I guess you believe whatever you read but I don’t. So you want all our children walking around brain dead!! Over all the research I have done personally I find this posts repulsive. The WHO just got caught in Africa sterilizing young women! And the young women who could have children were the only ones targeted! Thousands of cases have been looked at and awarded for damages. I sure get tired of this propaganda but I will not give up as the depopulation agenda marches on with a needle in every doctors hand. 

    Like


  20. Ah yes, the so-called “depopulation” agenda, the conspiracy theory du jour. Population sustainability is a topic I’m passionate about and something the Untied Nations and other science and government organisations are collaborating on (http://sociologyatwork.org/building-sustainable-cities/). There is, however, no valid concept called depopulation in the way you use this word.


    Your concern for young women in Africa would be otherwise touching Christopher Pope if it was anything more than paternalistic hyperbole. Fascinating that you have special insight on the thousands of cases of forced sterilisation by the World Health Organisation. The thing is that the WHO actually works to eradicate forced sterilisation. They published an excellent science-driven report on how to address this topic in support of women’s empowerment: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/gender_rights/eliminating-forced-sterilization/en/


    Enjoy!

    Like


  21. For those of you interested, I’ve published a demographic profile on people who don’t believe in vaccination in the USA. They don’t fit a specific group (cuts across gender, religion, race, education and income), although political ideology makes a slight difference. Republicans and independent voters are less likely to support mandatory immunisation than Democrats. The biggest difference is in age: younger people, and parents with small children are more likely to think vaccines are unsafe. There’s a wide gap between scientists who say vaccines should be required for all (86%) and the general public (68%). (http://goo.gl/W8rcuj)


    CC Jonah Miller Michael Rainey Not quite the sociological profile I promised (still coming!) but it may be of interest.

    Like


  22. I think that the analysis needs to be done at a more specific level, in which case, some of the broad groupings fade away.  For example, this map of parents asking for personal exemptions in California, highlights rural Northern California counties with a strong  libertarian bent: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-school-vaccines-20140903-story.html#page=1.  Those areas are not wealthy.   But the article also mentions specific private schools in wealthy communities such as Aptos.  The measles outbreak at the Washington/British Columbia border was centered in members of the Dutch Reformed Church.  And in the Netherlands similar groups are also having the same issue: http://www.rivm.nl/en/Images.  /000652%20Bezw%20tegen%20vacc%20EN_tcm13-67802.pdf.    Some Amish groups also have low immunization rates.  This affects overall herd immunity in some counties in states like Ohio or Pennsylvania.

    Like


  23. Thanks for this Gaythia Weis. I presume you mean the demographics post on my other thread? If so that discussion is about nationally representative attitudes as you know, since you’ve now commented there also. As I noted, the research addresses some of the confusion about exactly who believes in immunisation, and what proportion of the population they represent. In that case, we need a national sample. The datasets I’ve discussed show that in the USA: 1) The majority of people support the idea that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. 2) Amongst those who do not support the idea of mandatory immunisation, they distrust that vaccines are safe.


    A national picture of attitudes is important because while we have myths about immunisation on the one hand, we also have myths about those who don’t support immunisation on the other hand. We need a clearer picture of who these people are. Nationally representative samples help us better shape national policies for education and public health. Attitudes are important to understand because they have the power to shape behaviour. If more people were to distrust the science of vaccines at a national level, the problem becomes even harder to manage.


    Yet national data on behaviours of immunisation, as I pointed out, show that the majority of parents still choose to immunise their kids at the national level (91%). This other 9% is whom we need to better understand. What motivates them? How do we better address their anxieties? How should we pitch public health campaigns? We need a demographic picture of them and a point of comparison to other groups.


    Are there differences in the behaviours of immunisation at the state and local levels? Yes, I addressed this in the other post and in the comments with the point about “enclaves.” In certain geographic areas, there is a relatively higher proportion of people who don’t support vaccines and who then follow this through by not getting their kids immunised.


    The link you provide to Northern California shows patterns in one geographic area that requires local strategies. It is likely that the national data can help inform our understanding of why parents are choosing personal exemptions for their kids. In addition, we need local surveys and community consultations to better address why these enclaves develop in the first place. The sociological concept of homophily helps. Social norms are maintained by social networks. Geographic networks are especially salient. People tend to live, work and otherwise interact with other people like themselves, even in otherwise cosmopolitan cities.


    The national picture gives us the baseline of comparison on attitudes and behaviours; local epidemiology studies may show other patterns that need to be compared and contrasted to the national data. 

    Like


  24. I think that one of the important things about your work, and that of Dan Kahan is the emphasis on the fact that the majority of parents do support vaccines.  These days we have two kinds of communities, one of neighbors friends, and organizations, like religious groups, but the other formed online and through what we see in the media.   Vaccination decisions are made by first time parents in which they jump from being people who probably hardly thought about this topic to one in which they suddenly become deeply interested.   One of the things that they need to understand is just how mainstream and accepted vaccination is.  Feeding the controversy doesn’t help in that regard. 

    Like


  25. Thanks Zuleyka Zevallos. I’ve been having a depressing set of conversations over on Facebook (yes, I should know better) with a friend who is also staunch anti-vaxxer.  Like me, she grew up in Los Alamos, her parents were scientists, she was top of our graduating class, and is an extremely smart person. It is a friendly conversation, but we are getting nowhere. She’s highly educated in the science that exists – but feels that there is much science still to be done, and that the gaps between what is known, and what is not known, account for the uncertainty, and that the science is not as good as it could be. She also happens to be the sister of someone featured in this film: http://traceamounts.com/watch-the-trailer/


    The whole discussion is so depressing that I’ve given up. Data resistance seems to be incurable, or at least difficult to approach even with a friend.

    Like


  26. Oh how frustrating Bill Carter! I once worked with an exceptionally smart social scientist who was a mum and a staunch anti-vaxxer. Our conversations were always civil, but she would get incredibly upset that I did not agree with her, often to the point of tears. Someone in her family was a medical doctor and they’d had a falling out over her beliefs, so she did not take it well when others didn’t agree with her. Yet she constantly raised this topic in conversation. Her logic was circular: we can’t be 100% sure that vaccines are safe so it’s best not to vaccinate. My counter-argument was: what about when people at our work who are not social scientists constantly question our data? It was counter-productive to constantly have to explain theory and methods to people who are not trained in our discipline, yet want to critique every little thing. They hired us as experts, we presented solid data, so our expertise should be trusted. Her critical thinking skills and analysis was otherwise really wonderful but she would not concede that questioning another branch of science when the overwhelming evidence supports those conclusions, is a senseless battle.


    That’s the thing: level of education doesn’t preclude people from understanding the science on immunisation. The issue is really that immunisation has become tied to personal values and parental identity. Some parents with younger children feel vulnerable and confused and they think that not vaccinating is smart decision (“erring on the of caution”).


    The notion of risk has shaped many Western societies adversely and unevenly (as the sociologist Ulrich Beck argues). Risk is about controlling some physical phenomenon but not others. In this case, it’s better not to risk the minuscule chance that a child may have an adverse reaction to a vaccine that is otherwise considered safe, than to risk the high probably of illness and death from contracting known diseases.


    In other societies such as in Scandinavia, where risks are more weighted against collective needs, public discussions are less about abject distrust of science. By no means are these societies perfect and there is some growing resistance to vaccinations, especially to the introduction of relatively newer ones like the HPV vaccine, but there is less social confusion about the benefits.


    Your friend’s stance, that more research can be done is a curious one to take. There is always more research that can be done about anything and everything, but to take an ideological stance against immunisation based on this notion is a false dichotomy. Risk is framed in terms of individual autonomy and misplaced fears. “I’m not an immunologist but I don’t trust the overwhelming support for vaccines as evidenced in immunology research, better wait for more evidence (from this field I don’t trust).”

    Like


  27. The link below gives my idea of an excellent report on measles.  It does not get into antivaxxer combat.  It doesn’t even acknowledge that being an antivaxxer is a possibility.  It educates on the impact of measles back in the pre-vaccine bad old days, by using the story of the child of a well known children’s book author, Roald Dahl. 


    “Beyond Rash And Fever: How Measles Can Kill”


     http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/02/03/383305152/beyond-rash-and-fever-how-measles-can-kill.


    This report also emphasizes that there still are places in the world where parents do not have access to the measles vaccine. 


    I believe that this article effectively lays out a case that would enable parents to feel that having this vaccine is  a sensible decision to make for their children, one that they can feel grateful for having available to them.


    I think that it ought to be clear by now that battle mode does not work.

    Like


  28. Thanks for the link Gaythia Weis. It is a  really great article! There’s a nice mix of science and anecdote. But we’ve firmly established by now that my focus is on public health education, not on battling or stigmatising parents. Happy to keep talking about useful articles, but let’s move beyond this argument you keep coming back to, which is not an issue I’m pursuing. I’ve repeatedly stated that my focus is on understanding and addressing misinformation and parental anxiety. I don’t wish to have to restate this position again on any on my threads, especially since I don’t engage with this in my writing, thanks!

    Like


  29. Bill Carter I forgot to say: that documentary…. no, no, no!  Apparently, if  you cut off someone’s response as they are saying “Um,” it must mean the government is hiding a huge conspiracy about vaccines (according to the trailer.) So manipulative!

    Like


  30. Congratulations on choosing conspiracy theories over peer reviewed science recommended by the world’s expert medical organisations mike clason. Sadly, the page of a sociologist who has already fielded many of these types of comments patiently is not the right platform for you. Fare thee well.

    Like


  31. According to the W.H.O. there is no safe level of mercury.


    While science engages in its own hypocrisy there will always be problem convincing people to vaccinate children.


    Earlier this year an australian child had reaction to a vaccine and died.


    Thousands of people all over the world have had debilitating reactions to vaccines.


    Doctors and nurses need to tell the truth about vaccines.


    Only then will more people vaccinate.


    Calling worried parents ignorant and stupid will achieve nothing.

    Like


  32. Guy N D​ all your poorly informed comments have been answered already, so perhaps next time try reading the post, links and existing conversation. You can choose to believe in fairytales but the science I’ve linked to, including by WHO, debunk these conspiracy theories. And nowhere has anyone attacked parents on this thread. Reading the science will help you see clearer, if you’re interested in learning.

    Like


  33. Hi! 🙂 I think this is an excellent post!


    After many years of being a Mom… And careful consideration…gathering info from our physicians.. I personally believe in vaccines as a positive choice in preventative medicine for me and my family.


    We have 4 children..ages 28, 26, 13 and 7..they have all been vaccinated through the years…as well as myself and husband as children… 🙂


    I feel safer having had vaccines than fearing death of serious disease without them…especially heading unto an uncertain future’s challenges with new diseases making appearances in the world… Thank goodness they can create these vaccines that can give us protection…


    Thank you for letting me share My personal opinion. 🙂


    Thank you. ~*Diane

    Like


  34. “Our doctors really care about us.” I think many Doctors “care” about other things than “us.” Such as overprescribing various pills people don’t need, such as anti-depressants (67% prescribed are to those who don’t meet clinical requirements). Doctor attempted to prescribe me anti-cholesterol meds. I’ve never had high cholesterol,


    asked why- “Oh, we prescribe them to everybody over 50 bla bla bla.” Drug company profits run “medicine.” Perhaps those of you who worship government should look elsewhere … “science” under government control isn’t too trustworthy either. Wanting GMOs labelled probably due to a “conspiracy theory” too?

    Like


  35. Michael Woerl​ You’re throwing around many statistics. Please cite credible scientific resources for these figures if you’d like us to engage with your claims.


    If one doctor prescribed you medications you felt you didn’t need the best thing to do is to seek another medical doctor.


    The content of my post however is on vaccination, specifically the misconceptions the public has about vaccination. I linked to internationally reputable sources here and in my other post. So this is the focus of discussion.

    Like


  36. Prince John​ If you have something specific you need clarified, that’s a more useful way of commenting, as is fixing your spelling. Your account is filled with violence and gibberish so it’s doubtful you’re here for a sensible discussion.


    As a reminder to future commenters: if you want to critique the science then you need to use credible peer reviewed science to back up your claims or objections, and be specific with your argument.

    Like

Comment below! (Please follow my commenting policy)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.