Demographic Profile of Anti-Vaccination Movement in USA

Demographic Profile of Anti-Vaccination Movement in USA

Yesterday I wrote about the fraud and science myths that inspired the anti-vaccination movement (http://goo.gl/vzu3oF). Since I’ve gotten a few questions about the demographics of anti-immunisation groups, here is a broad sketch of the American public who don’t believe in vaccination. Scientific data show that anti-vaxxers come from all walks of life. There are no significant differences along gender, education, religion, race and income, though there are some differences in terms of political ideology. The strongest difference is in age.

As promised, I will later provide a more in-depth analysis of the sociology of anti-vaxxers, addressing educational and policy intervention. The main issue I highlight here is that the biggest divide is lack of trust in science amongst younger parents.

Parental Anxiety on Safety

A 2014 study from Professor Dan Kahan from Yale University finds that a minority of the American population does not support immunisation. Sampling a nationally representative group of over 2,300 American adults, the study finds that the majority support vaccines: 80% agree that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks; and 75% reject the idea that vaccines are not targeting serious diseases.

Let’s look at those with negative views: 41% of people had some level of doubt that vaccines were safe; and they were more likely to think the risks might lead to autism (25%) than other health risks like diabetes (10%).  

While there were no major gender differences overall, it is actually White men who exhibit the greatest scepticism on safety of vaccines (amongst those who question the science). This is consistent with other anti-science views. The idea that this is a “mummy-blogger” driven problem is incorrect. The biggest problem is anxiety parents of all genders have about their young children’s safety.

Even amongst the people who were hostile towards other science issues like climate change and evolution, they were more likely to believe that the risks of vaccines were low and the benefits outweighed the risks. “Even within those groups, in other words, individuals hostile to childhood vaccinations are outliers.”

The study is focused on attitudes, but notes that behaviour is a stronger indicator of immunisation stance – and 91% of infants are immunised according to CDC data. The study suggests there is not a large and growing number of people who don’t believe in vaccines, it’s just that these groups are in “enclaves”  who “often harbour communities of vocal critics of mandatory vaccination.” They now receive more media coverage, especially with new technologies that proliferate their views. The problem is of course, that even if a minority choose not to immunise, this puts a high number of infants at risk. The study suggests that understanding these perceptions of risk, and addressing them directly, is paramount.

Giving us hope is the fact that dispelling myths through targeted education does make an impact: 78% of skeptics were more likely to agree on the science after reading an official statement on vaccine safety by the American Academy of Paediatrics. 

The report argues that policy and education should be focused on addressing confusion about vaccines:

“Pockets of under-vaccination pose a serious and unmistakable public health concern… An important objective of such [public education] inquiry, moreover, should be to devise effective communication strategies for reassuring ordinary parents who are not hostile to vaccination but simply confused or anxious—whether as a result of misinformation being disseminated by critics of universal immunisation or otherwise.” (http://goo.gl/vdDu8z). 

I have more to say on how to better understand these concerns and how to target education programs, but as I’ve noted, I’ll do this in another post.

Generational Differences

Another recent survey released last last week by the Pew Research Centre came to similar conclusions on the diversity of people who don’t believe in immunisation. There are no single demographic profile, but political views have some impact. More Democrats (76%) think vaccines should be required in comparison to Republicans and independents (65% of each). 

The most pronounced difference is in age. The majority of older adults support vaccines (79%) while 59% of those under 30 support this view. A slightly higher proportion of (younger) parents with children believe vaccinations should be a parental choice rather than policy-determined mandate. What’s the key difference here? Generational experience. Older cohorts have living memory of measles and similar diseases while younger people do not; hence their scepticism. (http://goo.gl/S51PY5)

While level of education does not have a strong impact on refusal to believe vaccines are safe, being a scientist does have an impact: 86% of scientists say vaccines should be required for all, compared to 68% of the American public as a whole. (http://goo.gl/TKGK1a)

What’s the biggest problem here? As I’ve written in elsewhere, part of the issue is lack of trust in science (http://goo.gl/twbKn1) and lack of scientific literacy (http://goo.gl/7GNnEe). People distrust science because there are so many information sources out there which cast doubt on basic scientific facts. 

I know many scientists are engaging in wonderful outreach efforts on immunisation. This work is sometimes frustrating, but as I said yesterday, the interdisciplinary conversations that are happening on G+ give me great hope that public education can work. In the comments of my previous post, I explained that the loudest voices tend to be hostile as they are defending personal values and identity. They drown out the participation of the undecided and disengaged. By pooling our knowledge and resources from different disciplines, we can collectively work on ways to reach those who are privately worried about the risks and safety of vaccines.

See yesterday’s posts for discussion and science references on autism, mercury and other vaccination myths, or check out  Cliff Bramlett’s post on resources about vaccines: http://goo.gl/9UYqxY

#sociology   #science   #socialscience  

111 thoughts on “Demographic Profile of Anti-Vaccination Movement in USA


  1. Unfortunately Cliff Bramlett I think that’s what we’re looking at – going back to basics. Mass education programs for the public, and continuing this throughout schooling. How does immunity work? How many people died until vaccination programs addressed epidemics? What does an outbreak of measles look like? And so on. The idea that people need to see/experience/remember mass outbreaks in order to believe the science is obviously not workable. Increasing science literacy would better help the public sort the pseudoscience from the actual science.

    Like


  2. I am not usually an advocate of shunning or peer pressure, but in this case it may be defensible and effective. Parents should ask other parents if their children have been vaccinated, and think twice about allowing their children to sleepover if they haven’t. I would think that even those without children would have the right to be offended, as more disease means more chance of vaccine-resistant mutation. (Or would less vaccines make this less likely? Please correct me if you feel the need.)

    Like


  3. Look, I had all my vaccinations when I was a kid, I am fine. There is a tiny chance that a vaccine could injure a very small number of children. Not vaccinating them will lead to a very high chance that they could become ill with a debilitating disease, that will leave them far more injured or dead. I had a roommate who was never vaccinated, she had chronic resperitory infections and bronchitis, was on anti biotics all the time and other meds. She went to nursing school, but before she could be hired they required her to get her vaccinations, they came up with a schedule for her vaccines, and 6 months after she had completed them, she felt better than she had in years, all her chronic respiratory infections cleared up. No more antibiotics, decongestants and antihistamines on a regular basis.

    Like


  4. Hi Jason Smith This strategy of shunning is not a viable public health strategy. We can’t rely on individuals policing others. The best way to tackle this is to address the issues I’ve raised, such as the misinformed anxieties parents have about vaccinations, and showing the benefits and costs of these diseases. Most people understand that the risks are minor and the health benefits outweigh the risks. The people who oppose required vaccination believe the opposite – that the risks are too high. They don’t understand the basics of immunisation and they are afraid to trust the science. 

    Like


  5. This is the first article I’ve seen with so much detail on what so far has been really perplexing me, but still halfway does.  I’m just more certain I’m perplexed now—and halfway know why.


    I’m not sure “don’t trust in science” is quite focussed enough a diagnosis to resolve what people are thinking.


    I mean, cave men understood heat.  They had fire.  They knew it burned things.  Not just “sometimes” or “maybe” but if you held your hand in fire, even if “Ogg” said, “no, it really won’t burn you this time” they probably wouldn’t fall for it.


    There’s a little science to that, maybe.  It’s not going right down to atomic theory, but it takes a few ideas and finds them consistent.


    Do the these young, millennial parents who were the biggest disbelievers in “science” have any particular kind(s) of science they disbelieved more/less than others?


    I get the opinion they do believe that burning a hydrocarbon produces/releases something (magical?) that makes their car go, and they pretty much expect that to happen.


    Feeding their kid probably seems beneficial along those lines of fueling something too.


    So is the notion that holding a microbe close to a fire doesn’t seriously jack it up and weaken it not take hold in or catch fire in the imagination?  Is the idea that microbes only come in one variety: full strength?


    Do the ones that don’t believe in “science” even remember or recall being told how an immune system works?  Did it sound relevant at the time or now?


    If they don’t believe in science, then do they say they recuse themselves from any topic which involves science – like perhaps, putting fuel in the car to make it go, or whether they should poor gasoline on their lawn and light a match so they don’t have to mow for a week, come up?


    Do they only believe in direct trial-and-error or swallowing an opinion from someone who seems loud/angry/certain as a sure way to know things, and not trust applying logic; studying photos, diagrams, statistics?


    What exactly are the vertices or boundaries of these “enclaves”?  Random?  Religious or superstitious?  Do they live on farms without electricity?  Do they go to private/enclave schools more than public?  In school did they see all science courses/lessons as something only “scientists” should learn/understand?  Do they think that strong debate skills will actually change how a chemical reaction performs, or should change how it is recorded because the facts don’t matter and accuracy shouldn’t hold back reality?


    Do they have more corruption in their neighborhoods than others?  Do the people who run their school have vested interests in health that they make more money, or grow more members, if people get sick?  Do they feel companies who make vaccines can’t be trusted and if so why—because vaccines can never work because it’s impossible, they never worked and saying their were epidemics and then they stopped in places that vaccinated is just “hearsay” because it involves other places and other times?


    The percentage of hispanics who believed government should require vaccines was 3/4 which is lower than I expected across the board but much higher than the measly 2/3 of blacks&whites who want measles and other vaccine shots required.


    Is there a lack of faith that a properly designed, properly manufactured/preserved/prepared/applied vaccine works—or lack of faith in US corporations that, if something becomes a standard, fixture used all the time, then the corporations will screw it up based on free enterprise principles?


    Because the latter seems to be something the science deniers would have said at all about free enterprise as the “infallible hand of the markets” drove the car of the US economy off a cliff. And they still haven’t changed that story and said yeah financiers/markets really are super-fallible. Instead, that crowd just shifted responsibility to the government for picking up the pieces [without admitting authority/wherewithal to intervene would have been good, along with keeping regulatory barriers in place that kept it from happening 50 years].


    Or is this crowd one that doubted the magic-markets theory as much as super science that’s proven to work?  Are they ones who believe in betting on long shots like winning the lottery, instead of doing the same less rewarding thing over and over and steadily winding up getting their reward that way over time?  No?


    Somehow, “not believing in science” as a term doesn’t go anywhere.  It’s like driving a car halfway to someplace, saying “this looks like the right direction,” getting out of the car in the middle of the highway and kind of ambling around in the same hemisphere as the original destination.


    It really feels like the news media itself, but not trying to pin it down to a specific thought or piece of logic, but what color the people are colored, is saying – this sciencey thing really is so complicated. Which probably feeds into people believing in it.  I don’t see how one gets to race and quits. The age explanation was good.  What about finding out if knowing the name of a relative or acquaintance’s acquaintance who died in an epidemic?


    It really matters to understand the reason, or the lack of reasoning, behind this super duper high rate of indifference about inoculating the community.  Did nobody notice the announcement that some of the people who’d been vaccinated still succumbed to measles? That means it really isn’t okay if none of the kids in your school or workers in your supermarket/restaurants have been inoculated. Because even though you’re inoculated. You’re like the watch you don’t take in the pool because it’s water resistant but not waterproof.


    What is it that self-congratulatory Americans don’t get [anymore] about vaccination/epidemics/disease/immunity? They want to say don’t believe in evolution but let’s have a huge epidemic or 10 come at us in overlapping waves within a half generation?


    Americans can’t survive peanuts much anymore.  As yardsticks go, I think that means playing chicken with polio is a bad idea.


    This article is so great because it feels like it brings the answer almost into sight. But that makes it all the more frustrating to not be around that curve so we see.

    Like


  6. Hi John Collins I’ve linked to both studies as well as my own research on why people distrust science more generally, perhaps you might like have a read of the links to achieve a stronger understanding why a sub-group of Americans don’t support vaccines. As stated, the issue is that they don’t feel vaccines are safe, and in connection, they see that the risks are higher than the benefits for their children. In short, they distrust the science of vaccines. As I’ve noted, there is generally higher support of other controversial science topics, like climate change. Most Americans believe that vaccines are safe and necessary, so understanding the anxieties of the minority who do not believe that vaccines are necessary is important to public health.


    On enclaves, the author references cases in 2013 in New York, New Carolina and Texas. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a2.htm?s_cid=mm6236a2_w There are further references in the report.

    Like


  7. I also wonder if the parents’ fear of actively harming their child (by allowing an immunization) might trump their fear of passively harming her (by foregoing it). I agree with you that understanding both the science and the parents’ mindset is the best approach to modifying their behavior. (Thank you for increasing my knowledge of both. This is the most thorough social-media treatment I’ve come across.)

    Like


  8. I think John Collins touches on a number of things that affect some of the groups that are the problem.  A distrust of authority and government on the one hand, and perhaps an arrogance that they are above all that regulatory stuff on the other. 


    Vaccines have always been a controversial subject, going back to the days of the introduction of smallpox vaccines and the Salk/Sabin vaccine  debate regarding polio.   


    I also think that often the media does a poor job of communicating.  For example this article:  http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-delayed-doses-20150202-story.html.  The message to get across right now in LA would be to get your kid vaccinated against measles as soon as possible.   The limits on that according to the CDC are:


    “Why is MMR vaccine given after the first birthday?”


    “Most infants born in the United States will receive passive protection against measles, mumps, and rubella in the form of antibodies from their mothers. These antibodies can destroy the vaccine virus if they are present when the vaccine is given and, thus, can cause the vaccine to be ineffective. By 12 months of age, almost all infants have lost this passive protection.”


    Which has led to a standard of:


    “Children should be given the first dose of MMR vaccine at 12 to 15 months of age. The second dose can be given 4 weeks later, but is usually given before the start of kindergarten at 4 to 6 years of age.”


    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/default.htm


    I think that a message as in the LAT piece, in effect, do exactly as the doctor says or you are going to die, evokes resistance.  In the first place, we probably could devise a test that measured infant immunity and do immunizations sooner in some cases, later in others.  In any pediatrician’s office the schedule for vaccines is devised to fit with reasonably spaced well baby visits. Fear of liability really does cause some doctors to adhere strictly to protocols.  And pharmaceutical companies actually have responded to fears of too many shots, and parents who may not return for followup visits  by making combined shots that make giving them easier.  I think that parents would do better if they knew a bit of the why, but more of the “as soon as possible” part. 


    This article then goes on to re-hash a number of old fears, which only revives those fears.  Why have a section on:


    “What about the mercury that is no longer in Children’s vaccines”  ?


    If asked, say that’s old information, it’s not there.  IMHO, this article, by cataloging old concerns, simply brings them to the fore again.


    I think that Jason Smith rasies an interesting point, worthy of further investigation.  Active decisions can seem harder.

    Like


  9. Hi Jason Smith and thanks, I’m glad this post was helpful. You’re spot on; it’s the fear of unnecessarily exposing one’s child to harm. Conversely, more people say they support vaccines to protect their own child, rather than being motivated about protecting other children. This might seem logical (altruism for one’s own family), but it speaks to your hunch. People who support immunisation understand that effective campaigns work when all who are physically able to get inoculated. People who don’t support immunisation are more focused on protecting their own children because they don’t understand how vaccines work.

    Like


  10. Gaythia Weis I agree that simply telling people to immunise doesn’t work because it doesn’t address their fears about the safety of vaccines. Scare tactics don’t really educate anxious parents about how immunisation work. Addressing the confusion and misinformation through education is key.  

    Like


  11. Could it just be trickle down of profound Americana such as Creationism and antivax here and Americana in the US?


    Lots of folk get onto the “scientism bandwagon” rather than look at the science of things.


    We hopefully are a thousand or two years removed from augury and astrology but some nations just cant let it go..


    Is astrology still in the tabloids here?

    Like


  12. Thank you so much for this well written, well referenced post, Zuleyka Zevallos. I commend you on your work on helping to understand this perplexing issue. And for trying to actually engage with people to help them understand the issues and the need for quality references when trying argue a scientific issue.


    Thank you for having the patience to keep up your terrific science outreach.

    Like


  13. Henk van der Gaast You’re being antagonistic. You made a big claim on my thread and now you want to be rude and talk about “illegals.” I don’t support this term and the bigotry it represents. Plus my key area of research is on minorities, with a focus on migrants and refugees. I see no point in engaging in aggressive exchanges, so I’ll answer your last question before bidding you goodbye.


    More people believe in Creationism than the proportion who disbelieve the science of vaccines. People who don’t see vaccines are necessary, or who don’t trust that vaccines are safe, are not necessarily creationists or otherwise fundamentalist. They are, generally, found in different sectors of society. They have different levels of general education, but they lack an understanding of how immunisation works.


    Belief in astrology has no bearing on vaccines, but I’ve provided a link in my post on general science literacy that shows why people are confused about the basics of science, such as confusing the term astronomy with astrology. Surveys in the USA, Australia and other nations generally chronicle a drop in science literacy and science engagement, with people being confused about who to trust for information. This is why I write science for the public, as so many other scientists do: to help the public. But we don’t need to put up with snark. 

    Like


  14. Thanks for this very interesting post, Zuleyka Zevallos ! It seems the evidence runs counter to what I would have expected, which is that the same people who disbelieve evolution and climate change would disbelieve in vaccines. Thanks to you, I know better now. 🙂


    I find it very distressing how easy it is for someone spreading false data or pseudoscience to gain credibility. If the public isn’t very science-literate, facts (which are often weirder than anything we could actually make up) look about as credible as bald-faced lies… 

    Like


  15. Thanks Jonah Miller. You’re right; it is counter-intuitive, but it goes to show how different types of science are seen as a threat by different sub-groups!


    I agree about the pseudoscience! The National Science Foundation data I linked to above shows that most people get their science news online rather than from the mainstream news on TV (where most adults still get most of their other news). We know the mainstream news has a tendency to sensationalise science, but the bigger problem we face is so many other websites that set themselves up as experts simply confuse the public. These pseudoscience websites play into parents’ anxieties about vaccines, doubtless because the people running them believe what they’re peddling. 

    Like


  16. That’s interesting too, Zuleyka Zevallos​… I always felt that the mainstream media was the bigger problem because when science gets sensationalized, it looks just like the crank science, whereas people might have an easier time talking what’s nonsense and what’s not if mainstream science reporting was more sedated and realistic.

    Like


  17. There is a clear disconnect between the science that the mainstream media reports on and the type of science the public actually wants to read,Jonah Miller. The American media overwhelmingly reports on space news. This is ranked by the public as one of the least interesting subjects they want to watch. The second-most often reported science news on TV and traditional newspapers is medical or health news. This is where we see a lot of #ScienceMediaHype  _(“Cure for cancer!” “Latest fad diet!”)_


    There is obviously a very passionate group of astronomy news fans who are highly active online, namely because they are seeking different types of information.


    The pseudoscience websites provide constant information on specialised topics that the public wants, such as vaccines, but as we know, this is often done really poorly. If the mainstream media did a better job reporting on the issues that the public actually wants, as well as what the public actually needs to know (different things!), we may see less misinformation.

    Like


  18. And peddling is the most accurate word. Follow the money. Because I try to post good science I get people who try to counter it without peer reviewed studies. Something I’ve noticed that appears to be common between sites promoting scientific misinformation is that they are all selling something. Either they make money from an inordinate amount of ads on their site or they are attempting to sell some version of a ‘homeopathic cure’ that isn’t necessary if the viewer trusts the already available and normally low cost scientific solution.

    Like


  19. Very true Cliff Bramlett, I think many pseudoscience sites are after clicks for ads. They privilege quantity over quality and often do not moderate their comments sections. Some of them are no doubt passionate about their niche area, but their idea of what constitutes evidence is a problem. That’s what we see on anti-vaxxer threads and similarly polarising science topics: “This is true, just Google it!” and “Watch this video!” That’s exactly why the public needs general education on how to read science news critically. 

    Like


  20. You are correct Jonah Miller. The highest interest amongst Americans is in “new scientific discoveries” (40% of nationally representative sample of adults) and “use of new inventions and technologies (42%). Drilling specifically into STEM news issues, this is about “new medical discoveries” (58%) and environmental and pollution (45%).


    Other countries like China, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands have a much higher public interest on science. Unsurprisingly, they also have higher science literacy rates and they are more likely to say they know a scientist personally. In China, a high proportion of people have regular science discussions with other friends (61%). 


    The topics that are most discussed on new media, however, are about tech companies like Apple, Google, or Samsung, as well as general discussion of social media and celebrities. 😦


    Yet other data suggest that much of the news that’s discussed on Facebook is actually happening in private messages. This is not specifically about science news, but I suspect there is much more we need to know about how people are making sense of science news through their personal networks. Twitter correlates with higher education and a high interest in quality news. A study also recently found that more science papers are being shared on Twitter, but we need more work about the impact of these discussions on science literacy. Initial work by Paige Brown has a positive outlook. http://figshare.com/articles/Is_Social_Media_News_Consumption_Good_for_Science_/999061


    To bring it back to anti-vaccination: pseudoscience sites produce incorrect or predatory science news (preying on or otherwise reproducing anxieties). Social networks play a role as people spread misinformation which they find more compelling than official science. Those of us using social media to communicate science have a better chance of covering niche issues that mainstream media doesn’t cover – but we keep coming back to this: we need to make sure we reach the undecided and disengaged.

    Like


  21. My problem with mandatory vaccinations is simply that I don’t trust our government.  I did when I was younger, and over many years of scandals, disappointment, and the validation of more conspiracy theories than I find comfortable (NSA, I’m looking at you), they have earned that distrust.  I don’t think that they always have my best interests at heart, and I have seen how money can talk in government.  Do we really trust Monsanto, for example, to have our best wishes at heart?


    Education is what is needed, and that works all ways.  Each person should look at their own risk profile for these things and take what action they think is best.

    Like


  22. Paul Rumelhart The problem is that stupid people will not get vaccinated for a multitude of reasons, putting every living person at risk. 


    If you don’t protest the government being in charge of our missiles and subs, you have no cause to distrust them being in charge of our health, as they are now. 

    Like


  23. Hi Paul Rumelhart It’s best to remember that most scientists who work on vaccines are largely working in academia. All vaccines go through rigorous testing and the science is subject to peer review. Scientists who work on public health campaigns also work in NGOs and others work in support of shaping social policy. One department of government under a particular administration is not the same as other parts of the government that support public health. Scientists comment publicly on health policies and also critique government policies to improve them.


    Monsanto is a company. Its operations are deplorable in many areas, but they are not the government in the USA. They do not oversee the development of vaccines.


    It’s true that people should feel empowered to make their own informed decisions about their health but that’s the key – the informed part. People who distrust the science of vaccines do not understand how immunisation works. So making a decision based out of misplaced fear and anxiety (based on shoddy claims), is not really an informed decision. 

    Like


  24. As vaccination is a sensitive topic that has already drawn a few abusive rants, I’m closing comments for the next few hours and will re-open when I can moderate comments.


    I leave you with this wonderful bit of serendipity. Just as I was shutting down, I was saw on my Union of Concerned Scientists newsletter that they are holding a series of free workshops for scientists in dealing with the media! 


    http://www.ucsusa.org/action/science_network/science-network-workshop-series.html#.VNDwZJ2Ud8E

    Like


  25. stopeatinganimals Your stream is filled with anti-Semitism, other forms of racism, disgusting views on mental illness, as well as conspiracy theories about the Illuminati and Ebola being caused by vaccines. The world is a scary place without education. You seem to invest a lot of energy trolling vaccination science threads. You are practising confirmation bias: baiting people into arguments by focusing on tidbits that you think support  your world-view, while ignoring scientific evidence, such as what I provide in my post.


    Conspiracy theories are held by people who harbour anxiety about loss of group identity and control, and are more prevalent amongst people who lack education. It’s a shame you don’t use interactions on G+ to increase your knowledge, but rather to nurture your fears about people and issues you don’t understand. 


    You get no air time here, but I hope one day you will find the strength to be informed by something other than racist and hyperbole YouTube videos. If you’d like to better understand your need to believe conspiracies, here’s some scientific research to help.  http://www.amazon.com/American-Conspiracy-Theories-Joseph-Uscinski/dp/0199351813


    Good luck.

    Like


  26. Zuleyka Zevallos “Often do not moderate their comment sections.”  That’s not been my experience.  Several of these sites are so bereft of journalistic integrity they delete comments which provide accurate reliable information to counter their misinformation and misrepresentation.  

    Like


  27. Oh no Michael Rainey! My experience has been that they simply ignore calls for scientific input, but what you say is much worse. If they want to sell themselves as a news site, then respond to reasonable comments!


    I also find that when their spammers try to post their dribble in science communities (as clickbait) and get called out, they just delete the post and try again elsewhere. 

    Like


  28. Zuleyka Zevallos I’m guessing that it would be a U-shaped curve.  Increasing science literacy a little bit would likely lead to more pro-vax sentiment.  But, increasing it a lot would lead to more anti-vax sentiment, as people ask why we don’t get to see the studies that are missing from meta-analyses (see: file drawer effect), question why correlation is being treated as causation (see: not allowed to have proper experimental control groups), and demand open data because we are capable of interpreting it without a middleman. 

    Like


  29. Hi Eric Smith thanks for your comment! This isn’t the case. By definition, all scientists with PhDs have a relatively high rate of science literacy. This generally means having critical thinking skills, such as understanding some basic science (e.g. evolution) and insight on how science works (theories, methods, sampling error, funding, ethics, etc). We understand that in order to go against the empirical literature, we need valid and reliable data, rather than emotion. We also have the general ability to sort out reputable resources from pseudoscience. While a minority of highly educated people, specifically parents with young kids, still challenge the science on immunisation, you can see from the data I discuss that a high proportion of scientists are not anti-vaxxers. The overwhelming majority of scientists support universal immunisation programs. 


    So you see, strengthening science literacy doesn’t turn people into anti-vaxxers. Instead, this would help the public understand some basics of science. (In one of my linked articles in my post, I’ve shown general basic knowledge of science is in decline in the USA and Australia.) 

    Like


  30. Zuleyka Zevallos​​​ This is an interesting opinion, but it doesn’t really align with the evidence.


    Kahneman finds that scientists (like everyone else) often rely on heavily on heuristics and biases, rather than controlled processing. They do differ from the general population, in that they are more confident in their wrong answers.


    Training in the process, but not philosophy of science can actually be quite dangerous because a skilled scientist has a repertoire of analysis techniques to confirm his or her biases. We’re seeing this on the Merck vaccine whistle-blower case. Most bad science isn’t fraud. It’s just humans doing what humans do….seeing what we want to see.


    What most scientists are really good at is reductionism, which (combined with overconfidence) leads to naive interventionism, the tendency to act based on knowns while severely underweighting the potential impact of unknowns. E.g. Finding that the thimerosal/autism link is bogus therefore means that vaccines are safe.


    Very rarely do you encounter a scientist with a firm grasp on the philosophy, sociology, or political economy of science, because scientists are heavily incentivized to specialize and find positive results through whichever straw they are looking. Very few big picture thinkers. If there were, nobody would be comfortable even talking about vaccines due to the fact that we only see half of the evidence (companies tend to only publish positive studies while filing away negative and null results). I’m quite taken aback that anyone could speak with certainty about an incomplete literature, but I suppose religious people do it all the time.


    8

    Like


  31. Hi Eric Smith Yes, there’s a divide between the focus of the social sciences and other disciplines (we can’t all be experts at everything!), but the evidence I’ve presented shows that direct education about immunisation helps people to change their minds about the risks and benefits of vaccination.


    For example, the research I’ve discussed and linked to shows that more people changed their minds about the need for vaccinations when reading a well-informed statement by an authority institution (American Academy of Paediatrics). Evidence also suggests that further understanding of scientific practice (that is, scientific literacy on this issue) is associated with higher support of universal immunisation programs. The scientific evidence therefore supports the idea that addressing the specific anxieties and misinformation about anti-vaccination (safety for example) is very helpful.


    As for your other statements about science, some of these lean towards conspiracy theories, which I addressed in my previous post. You write, “the fact that we only see half of the evidence (companies tend to only publish positive studies while filing away negative and null results).” This is simply incorrect. There is no grand conspiracy where researchers are holding back on negative and null results on vaccines. If you have credible, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, please provide the references.  


    I agree that more training philosophy of science is useful to science as a whole. It supports an understanding of historical and social issues about why and how certain bodies of knowledge come to dominate how science is taught and practised. For example, the history of why minorities in particular distrust vaccines due to experimentation and colonial wars. Philosophy of science also addresses how socio-cultural biases become embedded in scientific practice, such as the exclusion or omission of women and minority knowledge from the way in which science is taught and recognised. There is a lot of work being done on how to blend interdisciplinary perspectives in general science training, and it would be great to see this being brought into more classrooms.


    At the same time, vaccinations research goes through peer-review process and scientific engagement (including critique of results) continues after publication. So the idea that not understanding philosophy of science leads to a major flaw in the science of vaccination is wrong. A philosophy of science would enhance vaccination programs, by addressing why people don’t believe the science. This value is demonstrated by the fact that social scientists carry out this work in support of public health policy. 


    My previous post addresses misconceptions and conspiracies on vaccinations. http://goo.gl/vzu3oF

    Like


  32. Zuleyka Zevallos I don’t question the result that a little bit of science education makes people more likely to vaccinate.  I’m just saying that it gives them the illusion of complete knowledge.


    Also, the file drawer effect is quite real, and more pronounced when there is a profit motive.  Have a look at Ben Goldacre’s work with the Cochrane Collaboration.  They find that the left side of the normal distribution (negative results) is missing in metaanalyses of drug efficacy literature and that industry has more of a bias toward positive results than academia.  How are doctors and patients supposed to make decisions if you only show them the good without the bad?


    I’m not suggesting a grand conspiracy, just strong institutional pressures to produce positive results.  A scientist that produces a bunch of negative and null results isn’t going to have a private sector job for long, even if he or she were able to obtain tenure.  Like I said before…Bias, not fraud.  This is the political economy of science.  It’s no conspiracy theory that Merck is embroiled in three whistleblower cases regarding its MMR vaccine.


    Also, there is no incentive for companies to search for unknown side effects or long term effects.  This is why, even though opening up a social media dialogue with patients about a drug would be lucrative, companies will often refuse to allow or read unmoderated user comments.  If someone reports an unresearched side effect, the company is going to have to spend millions following up on it.  So, they voluntarily keep their heads in the sand.  We rely on post-market surveillance by clinics to uncover these links after the fact.  In the case of diseases of chronic inflammation, for which there is both a correlational and theoretical link to vaccines, we won’t know for several years. 

    Like


  33. Zuleyka Zevallos Thanks for writing this post and doing the research. It is definitely a disagreement of he science of vaccines that is a problem and is definitely due to their anxiety (“Oh, this won’t prevent it” or “But what if this causes it and I get really sick? That would make me a horrible parent”). I still find it strange how the younger generation (I would say I’m part of it, at the age of 18) is so anti-vax, given that the science behind vaccinations is much more widely known now than earlier on and the effects it has on major pandemics and epidemics is more evident with more recent outbreaks. Maybe the fear of them/hatred of them is passed down or encouraged?

    Like


  34. Eric Smith You are actually reproducing a series of incorrect and dangerous myths about vaccination that are directly what the anti-vaccination movement perpetuate. You started off saying public education to boost scientific literacy would lead to more anti-vaccination sentiment; then you said education efforts were doomed because they need philosophy of science; then you moved to conspiracy theories about “companies” that produce/hide nefarious results that negatively impact on vaccines.


    For the final time: this post is about why people don’t believe in immunisation. This and my previous post look at why it’s important to dispel myths about immunisation as this impacts public health. Researchers who produce peer-reviewed research in support of immunisation programs are subject to scientific scrutiny. I asked you to provide credible peer reviewed science; you have not done so. Conspiracies are counter-productive to public science education. Please do not continue this line of commentary or I’ll be forced to block you.

    Like


  35. Hi Matthew Jackman thanks for your comment! Part of the issue with younger people distrusting vaccination is that basic science literacy is in decline, while distrust in science is increasing. This is the outcome of history (misuse of science in previous generations and poor government policies), as well as the proliferation of poor information sources. There are simply too many pseudoscience websites spreading misinformed opinions that are passed off as fact. Yet a larger issue is that younger people in advanced nations have not lived through pandemics. Ideas about parenting and individualism have been changing, which means people are more likely to avoid personal risk or risk to their kids, even if they don’t understand that the risks associated with vaccines are minuscule for most people. All these issues collude to make younger people more distrustful and anxious about vaccines. 

    Like


  36. Zuleyka Zevallos So very true. Many 1st world citizens almost live in ignorance to what a pandemic really is and what effect it has on society. Because of this, it is one factor in why they choose not to vaccinate. After all, what chance do they have in getting such a serious disease? rolls eyes at their ignorance I think schools need to focus more on this issue (well biology classes at least) and help sought the fact from fiction. 

    Like


  37. Economically speaking, vaccination is a personal consumption choice against risk of developing a negative outcome (future disease).  We are headed into dangerous territory when we allow outside entities such as the state to dictate what the individual does with their own body.

    Like


  38. David G Economically speaking, vaccination is incredibly costly to public health. Not vaccinating can cost thousands if not millions of dollars to correct after outbreaks. For example one outbreak of measles in one American city back in 2010:


    “a 2010 study in Pediatrics quantified the expense of containing a 2008 outbreak in San Diego in which 11 children were infected — and another 839 people were exposed. That cost the public sector $124,517, an average of more than $10,000 per infection. These are costs borne by all of us: Every tax dollar spent containing measles is a dollar not spent on other public health initiatives.


    “Maybe you’re not particularly civic-minded. If so, consider this: Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated in San Diego had to be quarantined at an average cost of $775 per family. Another infant had to be hospitalized after being infected — a harrowing ordeal for that child’s parents and one that rung up almost $15,000 in medical costs..” (http://goo.gl/nvxnCR)


    That’s just one relatively small outbreak. With increasing cases of measles or other cases like whooping cough, the costs of not vaccinating are too high to ignore. The Australian government is reintroducing a free vaccine to target whooping cough due to new outbreaks, which were sadly the outcome of the previous Liberal government cutting out the vaccine program in the first place. (http://goo.gl/Zo9Mlq) So you see, it is astronomically costly to eradicate vaccination programs in a misguided view to save money or out of ignorance that diseases have been conquered; or otherwise ignoring immunisation as a public health issue.


    The greatest cost of all is the millions who die every year because they lack access to vaccinations. Or in the West, we see a growing number of outbreaks involving hundreds of people with the potential to infect thousands or millions. The CDC clearly outlines the costs eradicating vaccinations. (http://goo.gl/e8e8eJ)


    As for fear of control about what people can do with their own bodies: the state already regulates what we can and can’t do with our bodies. Some of these laws are informed by science, such as with vaccines; but other laws are informed by religion and conservative morality, rather than science. I am advocating for science-based policies.


    All societies regulate our bodily choices without exception. Some health issues are deemed illegal, without targeting the social causes (poverty, lack of education) often with disastrous consequences (such as with criminalisation of drugs, which primarily targets minorities – Black and Latinos in the USA; Indigenous Australians in Australia). The better way of handling public health issues is through education, and by targeting the social causes impacting on disease, such as access to vaccines and social services, as well as focusing on prevention and wellbeing of vulnerable communities.


    How interesting that amidst all those conspiracy theories you’re so fond of posting on your personal thread, you recently posted that autism is caused by vaccines (already bunked, as noted here and in my previous post), as well as other anti-vaccine rants. Yet you have posted nothing on political debates that continue to encroach on women’s bodies, nor the socio-economic inequalities that give rise to other issues, such as diabetes management for poor, minority groups (http://goo.gl/qCPq3d).


    Such is your grand concern for the policing of health that only fairytales of government conspiracies consume your attention, yet you do not engage with concrete public health issues.


    The fact is you haven’t read the scientific information in my post. You simply want to argue a grand anti-establishment viewpoint, standing on nothing but misguided ideals, without reflecting on real issues. Good luck with your endeavours.

    Like


  39. Hi michael naude Not it’s not hormonal. It’s as I’ve demonstrated at length, many times over: the issue is misguided fears due to lack of education, and partly due to lack of direct experience with outbreaks. So the work ahead is about addressing these fears, and misinformation – using science. 😉

    Like


  40. Zuleyka Zevallos sorry my dear i don’t share your view at all and am very sure of the hormonal issue your education is bogus and does not allow you the benefit of functional hormones.


    Pharmaceuticals are produced by war criminals fact and you want to put your faith in them the joke is on you they destroyed our food on purpose for this reason if this sounds delusional to you have your hormones checked how is your attention span ?


    You may also find those outbreaks your talking about came directly from vaccinated people    

    Like


  41. michael naude You provide no evidence and assume you are right. If you want to show rational thought, show your references. Also, there is significant support by research that mass vaccinations coupled with control strategies was the reason that it was treated so effectively, to the point of it’s extinction.

    Like


  42. Matthew Jackman if you think i need to present you with any evidence this means you are totally ignorant to the vast amount of truth out there please by all means take as many drugs as you can start with the most dangerous one called sugar it is designed for you and will keep you vibrating at this low frequency where truth will be hard to grasp  

    Like


  43. Whoops – posting a cocktail of “hormone” conspiracies michael naude with some good old fashioned sexist condescending comments thrown in; hope this satiates your Entitled White Male Rage for the day. This is not the theatre for your “pharmaceuticals war criminals” diatribe, although it’s always mind-blogging that privileged people who have never been touched by war and violence evoke human rights abuses, to serve their petty agendas. You join the ranks of another now-deleted comment on this thread by an equally angry White woman who equated vaccination programs with the Nazi regime. You both do this, as so many other trolls do, without a sincere interest in history. And a week after Holocaust memorial Day. Pick up a book or a Kindle, and learn about why your racist arguments perpetuate violence.


    Education is always better than ignorance, but c’est la vie.

    Like


  44. Thanks for your sensible comment Matthew Jackman! I’m afraid Michael Naude is now blocked from this thread for exactly the reasons you stated – he refuses to provide science and simply wants to argue. He does, however, wish you to have some sugar because this fits into a discussion about vaccines by exactly zero percent. 🙂 Appreciate your input! 

    Like


  45. Zuleyka Zevallos My doctor enticed me to sit still for my shots by promising me a lollipop. It’s all making sense now! 😛


    Seriously, though, after reading  the comments of some of the adults here, I’m contemplating the benefits of targeting an awareness campaign at children. Is this being done, or would it be considered unethical?

    Like


  46. Thanks Jason Smith, great point​! Public information campaigns for adults are essential ASAP, and yes absolutely lifelong education for kids at different stages of primary & secondary school. Unfortunately this is not universally done but it’s what I advocate.


    Also: lollypop; score!

    Like


  47. This is really scary. We’ve managed to wipe out polio, measles, mumps, and many more that in this global village will spread like wildfire and be much more virulent, easy to catch and dangerous with today’s population and proximity and mobility. The objections to vaccination are often based on emotional misinformation. The threat of a global viral and/or bacterial pandemic is very real. Are these young people supporting the movement to stop vaccination as a means of massive population control by wiping out entire populations? Viral zombie apocalypse here we come if that’s the case. I’m being dramatic possibly, but I could be understating risk. There are more humane methods of population control but few more effective. Please, please reconsider and read health department statistics.

    Like


  48. Lori Brown What’s the cost of a global pandemic… or even a national epidemic??? Far more. Give me a break. If it was seen as important… which it vitally is…there would be funding available. Let’s see how the elite 1% of the richest people who hold the majority of the world’s wealth respond if their families are threatened with exposure.

    Like


  49. Lori Brown what flawed study? I’ve cited various scientific studies in this post and the previous post on the same theme. Vaccines for the most widely spread or potentially lethal diseases are part of public health campaigns in developed nations, and often subsidised by the state.

    Like


  50. Lori Brown If you are suspicious of the studies that demonstrate the benefits of vaccination programs, you don’t have to rely on them. You could instead ask your grandparents about their experiences before these programs were put in place, and seek their opinions as to whether the programs have made the world a better place.

    Like


  51. Matthew Jackman most insurance companies cover vaccination. I’m a retired nurse and believe that they’re not expensive and certainly less expensive than the illness or outbreak. Call or check online with the Department of Health. Remember to put dot gov instead of dot com at the end of the URL. They should be able to help you with prices and free clinics!

    Like


  52. Gina Gerson Choquette GERSON CHOQUETTE


    Thanks for the reply and for proving the point against Lori, which was what I was originally trying to do. It is sad when people try and make excuses for not getting vaccines or against them from a health point of view, when there is so much that points for the safety and the low cost of vaccines.

    Like


  53. Vaccines are designed by the New World Order to dumb down the masses and keep them dependent upon the system. This is why it is being pushed so vigorously in the mainstream media, and anyone who dare questions it, along with chemtrails and the like, are automatically perceived as ‘scientifically illiterate’ or ‘stupid’ because of elite conditioning. Also, before anyone here calls me a ‘ crazy conspiracy theorist’, simply do the research first. Not all ‘conspiracies’ are ridiculous as the connotation would assume.

    Like


  54. Look, I realize I hold a massively unpopular opinion. However, it is due to years of research regarding the elite bankers and 33rd degree Freemasons. The mainstream media is controlled, and this is observable with research.


    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”


    -Arthur Schopenhauer

    Like


  55. Mia Hansen​​​ None of these links are scientific or in any way credible. This is all conspiracy theories by people who don’t understand science. Research is not writing or reading indiscriminately whatever makes sense to your world view or personal values. Scientific research that is valid and realiable is a process that trained professionals carry out and which is published in reputable scientific journals. Then other researchers will comment on the work and attempt to either reproduce the results if it’s experimental, or critique based on existing bodies of knowledge.


    The original study that first lead people to believe vaccination causes autism was debunked thoroughly by valid science. Experts around the world demonstrate the importance of vaccination.


    My post is about why people disbelieve the science. The research shows that lack of understanding of science (poor science education) leads to lack of trust in science, especially amongst parents.


    The resources you’re reading are only serving their own vested interests and fears due to lack of education. The World Health Organisation is a not for profit group of experts from around the world who demonstrate that vaccines are safe and necessary. Other experts also make their resources available. I’ve provided relevant scientific sources here and in my linked post. It would be better to be educated through these reliable sources on this important issue. 

    Like


  56. I have read the inserts with contradictions for the vaccines that were supposed to be introduced into my sons newborn blood stream. How many people do that? I dont have a clue, but what i do know is my son’s family medical history…how can the medical community be so confident that nothing will go wrong that they dont even inquire about a familys medical history before injecting formaldehyde into a new borns blood stream? Simple, there is no accountability. If they are wrong, they will blame it on SIDS or the parents…anything but the chemical cocktail! The secondary reason, its not their child and third is that they get paid. So who will be responsible for caring for my child(assuming he doesnt die) who had a family medical history of MS and hodgkins disease. Im talking about grandparents not generations in between. But the doctors dont even ask. An icecream truck pulls up to the local walmart parking lot to inject our kids with the umbrella universally safe dose of “protection” without even asking the childs name! And as far as the age difference goes you mention….perhaps its because i have asked 136 parents and grandparents ages 50-75 if they can name 1 ingredient in 1 vaccine….0 could….how many knew there was an insert available listing any contradictions to receiving each vaccine….0….how many knew there were contradictions from the manufacturer that existed….0. This “education” sure seems awfully one sided. Just sayin.

    Like


  57. As far as cost is concerned..how do i put a price on a child injured or killed. We were all created with the innate ability to heal ourselves. Humans werent created to live forever, the planet isnt designed for people to live forever. Albeit horrible when someone, anyone succumbs to illness or disease…that is nature. The nature of the human life cycle is that it ends, For various reasons. Science still teaches stable systems, systems that self correct. Nature is one such system, as long as there is no outside force to interfere.

    Like


  58. Erin Canalez​I think you’re saying that you think the risks you see involved with immunisation frighten you. There are risks with anything, but the risks involved with vaccination are very minor. The risks with not vaccinating are very high. I’ve linked to resources that discuss these risks using science. The World Health Organisation is very easy to read and links to other useful articles.


    There is no mass conspiracy amongst medical professionals to hurt children; quite the opposite in fact, they are invested in keeping children alive.


    Your final comments on nature are erroneous. Nature does not “self correct” measles and other diseases that once killed millions of children. One of the main reasons you and I and everyone else on this thread have lived to adulthood is due to vaccinations, as with other scientific and medical innovations.

    Like


  59. My point is why put all of this trust into a medical community when they dont do their jobs. People are alot more likely to listen to and believe someone trust worthy. If you want people to listen to doctors etc, they need to have faith in them. If the doctors arent asking for family medical histories prior to injecting these children then he is failing to do his job! People are more likely to believe the reports and data if they werent constantly being deceived. Saying there is 100% no chance that there will be any adverse reactions to an innoculation is just false. Isnt it the medical professionals responsibilty do perform his/ her job with due diligence? By not asking questions that are necessary to make the decision that it is as safe as possible to inject a child, they are culpable and should be dealt with accordingly. The less injuries caused the more people will believe they are safe. Isnt this obvious? Or is a few lives ok for the “greater good”? Even if those lives may have been left undamaged by not working under the assumumption that the manufactuer issues warnings of contradictions for giggles?

    Like


  60. The other post is suggesting that perhaps stopping people from catching a disease currently vaccinated against is going against nature. Many things have changed about our lifestyles since these pandemics etc, such as better hygiene and clean water. If a small number still contract one of these diseases..well maybe thats how nature intended it to be

    Like


  61. Zuleyka Zevallos I appreciate the assumption that the risks of vaccines may frighten me, and that isnt the case. My fear is in medical professionals who have become so lax when it comes to injecting people, especially children without taking the precaution necessary to ensure that individuals safety. There are contradictions listed because there are some scenarios where receiving that particular injection is not ideal and does increase risk of adverse reactions. However minimal it may be, id be much more likely to have faith in what someone is telling me if i knew they had all the necessary information to make that decision. But how does someone say its safe if they havent acquired all of the information to know that?

    Like


  62. Erin CanalezNatural selection does not mean what you think. It’s doubtful you’d have this flippant response if it was your child dying from a preventable disease. Medical research is carried out under controlled conditions following scientific protocols. You’ve managed to repeat yourself several times yet refuse to read the material provided. That’s enough air time for this type of vested ignorance.

    Like


  63. Erin Canalez


    ehh… I don’t think you know what natural selection is. Given humans have evolve to have the intelligence that we do, ‘natural selection’ isn’t really that big an impact when it come comes to preventable diseases… because we are smart enough to prevent them. How does your twisted idea of natural selection work? Does it assume modern medicine is evil/misguided and we should just stop using it?

    Like


  64. SunEagle Cherokee


    Likely. I think many people go against modern medicine due to being affected by the fear mongering of those also against modern medicine. Basically, they use anecdotal evidence and think that trumps empirical evidence due to having a more emotional attachment to stories about people, not the inner workings of modern medicine; quite a sad thing to think about in what is supposed to be an advanced society.

    Like


  65. Unfortunately, the rise in the number of immunizations to children have risen, with a higher infant mortality in the US which has one of the highest number of vaccines given to its citizens.


    I had flu as a youth and then about 15 years later, had double bouts of flu in a 2 year period. SO I GOT A FLU SHOT (which gave me a small case of flu for 2 wks) and I never had flu again.I took my second flu shot 20 years later (2013).


    Now, flu shots have been recommended yearly.


    After reviewing my life, I must say, ask, _Do adults really need to have a flu shot EVERY YEAR?”


    _”Do children need a flu shot yearly, given that in the US they get multiples of vaccines from infancy (with SIDS episodes rising within a few days after some vaccines to infants) and given the facts that aluminum and formaldehyde are in most of those vaccines and the monitoring of such by body weight and micro kg amounts of vaccines sloppily disregarded, given the neurological and kidney issues and other health issues because of these toxins…. Are infants checked if they have a kidney problem before being immunized (aluminum is accumulative and can even lead to death in to those with kidney problems?)


    Why have so many children been damaged from vaccines? There are reputable doctors reporting on this.


    Check my g+ health and enviro collections. I have found multiple and credible sources.


    My own example of the flu shot in my life of 60 years must be clear evidence how unnecessary yearly flu shots are. I have even had bad allergies and a low immune system since my 20’s. You would think with someone with Fybromyalgia and CFS for 15 years would have needed a flu shot during such dehybilitating diseases . I only took the flu shot in 2013 and 2014 because of the hype and media scare of the new strains of flu. I still haven’t had the flu since my 30’s, 1996, 20 years ago!

    Like


  66. Matthew Jackman Research is clear. See my comment. Vaccines have a place but there is clear oversight of labels, body weight consideration and doses amounts within short periods that lead to aluminum toxicity. Obviously, too many vaccines given in multiple doses to children places a higher rate of aluminum accumulation. A country with the highest vaccines to its citizens and children, yet with an alarming high infant mortality, and significant correlation between SIdS and certain vaccines causing infant deaths within days of being inoculated.


    The scare wouldn’t have arisen had not so many been damaged by vaccines.

    Like


  67. Zuleyka Zevallos​​​ so the OPV new strain mutation hitting Ukraine, derived from the OPV Gates-WHO polio program overseas isn’t a concern for you?


    So SIdS isn’t a concern to you when infants die shortly after receiving certain vaccines?


    So, 47K India population crippled/or dead after receiving OPV from Gates vaccine program doesn’t concern you?


    So, you see no problem with how vaccines are administered and the rise in immunizations to children?


    In other words, you think it is appropriate for aluminum and formaldehyde to be in vaccines for children or anyone?


    So you think it is OK to market flu shots as necessary yearly as pushed by the media? I am 60 and only had 3 flu shots in my life with only 6 cases of flu in 60 years. My first bout of flu virus was when I was elementary age. 25 years later at 40, had the flu again, back to back 2 yrs in a row


    SO I GOT MY VERY FIRST SHOT WHEN I WAS ABOUT 40 years old. (That flu shot gave me flu).


    Since 1996, when I was about 40, I haven’t had the flu. *I took 2 flu shots in 2013 and 2014 due to media hype of multiple flu strains. In other words, 20 yrs later with no flu cases since 1996, I was coherced by fear induced by the media to get the flu shot again


    Now, do adults need a yearly flu shot?


    Do children, given an already high raise in required vaccines, do they need to take a flu shot every year? Given that they are already getting too much aluminum in their little bodies????


    It is just common sense to review and research even if it goes against the grain or is perceived as a conspiracy theory. There are too many credible doctors and sources that are revealing the problems associated with multiple vaccines. There needs to be change so that people will feel confident to have necessary immunizations.


    We cant turn a blind eye. Change needs to take place regarding the numbet of vaccines imposed and the body weight per aluminum max allowed and number of doses per vaccine should be taken into account.


    With people like Gates connected to WHO vaccine programs, and the polio deaths, this does not lead the public to trust either. WHO should disassociate itself from Gates, as he has been recorded twice and documented as commenting about depopulation strategies and by using vaccines and reproductive healthcare for such, as the growing concern of overpopulation and carbon dioxide is apart of his argument.

    Like


  68. Zuleyka Zevallos I think there is a place for vaccines, but the current day issue and fear of vaccines occurred brought on by excessive immunizations, especially to children, with too many doses containing aluminum and formaldehyde, and SIDS brought on shortly after infant vacinnations, etc. and OPVs administered to India yet banned in the US in 2000 because the oral polio vaccine caused 24K polio cases in the US. With 47K crippled/dead in India from Gates-WHO vaccine overseas program, how can the public feel comfortable with vaccines?


    Given that Gates is apart of eugenics-depopulation agenda, connected to gmo backing with Monsanto, and not to forget WHO, which is apart of the UN, which is staging itself for globalism and the sustainability of Earth, causes people to be a little uneasy when political-Kenyan allegations arise against WHO for Tetanus vaccines (given in an excess of 5 to young women) have been documented as leaving an antibody in their system and leading to a type of sterilization.


    There is often truth mixed in conspiracy theories and when credible source after another,… physicians add credit to vaccine dangers, it causes many to resist,for their own and their children’s safety.

    Like


  69. Dawn Pearce


    sooooo many claims without citations, and really placing yourself with the conspiracy nuts.


    Again, feel free to give citations on the idea many children are having too much aluminum and formaldehyde added within a short time span.

    Like


  70. Matthew Jackman Modern medicine has its place. My grandfather was a physician. I worked in Healthcare-Legal. Not to disqualify medicine, but to shed light on a vaccine program that needs change. Once that’s done and when people like Gates isn’t apart of mass marketing vaccines, then maybe the public might embrace vaccinations again.

    Like


  71. Dawn Pearce The personal anecdotes and conspiracy theories you raise lack evidence. You haven’t answered Matthew Jackman’s repeated attempts to engage you in a scientific debate. My post provides credible scientific evidence, which you refuse to read. This thread is not a place for you to continue to share your personal values and misinformation.

    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.