Canada vaccine awareness programs

[expos4ever]

You don’t think peer review is relevant?

The prosecution rests.

 

[expos4ever]

The bad news:

1. The conspiracy theorists are more passionate in their rejection of evidence-based science and good old-fashioned rationality than the pro-vaxers are in their acceptance of it.
2. Most - not all but most - anti-vaxers derive their sense of personal identity from their position- they will not change no matter what as this would be too much of a threat to their sense of who they are.

The good news: Since we are more numerous, we can get out and advocate! We can manifest the same passion for protecting human health as the anti-vaxers have for their position. They won’t change, so we need to focus efforts in the uncommitted. And, more generally, we need to figure out how ro help people escape the trap of tribal thinking and embrace independent thinking.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I’ve also seen zero first hand proof of the effectiveness of these so-called vaccines. ‘Because medical “professionals” said so’ isn’t good enough.

It's much better than "because guy on youtube said so"

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Polio was (and still can be) successfully treated with vitamin C injections, as affirmed by doctors in papers from the era.

One debunked claim versus hundreds of thousands of doctors and medical professionals and literally tens of millions of people successfully vaccinated against polio.

Not exactly a hard choice

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm not really interested in whether the papers are peer reviewed or not. Science is not a democracy.

Today's medicine is about money, not cures. Vitamin C and most useful cures are not patentable, so no money.

The ones left are obviously making money. They're not charities.

Vaccine manufacturers won't ever meet the goal posts without rigging, because vaccines are drugs, and are neither completely safe nor effective. Due to the lower standards required for vaccine testing, these are currently probably some of the most dangerous drugs on the market. With proper testing, vaccines would likely be taken off the market, but certainly not mandated.

Obviously, depends on the case and it's findings, but hard to imagine that with all the money of vaccine manufacturers, they'd lose a case were vaccines not the cause of the damage claimed.

As I stated, I understand the rebuttal case was based on Wakefield's paper having been retracted - a move that was politically forced, rather than due to any demonstrable dishonesty on Wakefield's part.

You're right can't make money off of vitamin c and other such cures...I mean thats why the alt med makes billions of dollars selling these quack medicines every year.

I love people that deride peer review and other things, but will believe anything some quack with a webpage will claim.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

You're right can't make money off of vitamin c and other such cures...I mean thats why the alt med makes billions of dollars selling these quack medicines every year.

Not only that - but the claim, even if it were true in terms of some kind of conspiracy - makes no sense.

Giving someone a vaccination that costs little and can be dispensed by a nurse with basic training has very little change of raising much money for anyone, especially versus people getting sick and requiring an intensive stay in hospital with many drugs, consults, etc. If you wanted to make money from a disease, the last thing you would do is cure it.

Meanwhile Big Homeopathy sells products by the millions to be taken on an ongoing basis by a captive market convinced that seeking any sort of medical advice is wrong and who therefore will never check the claims made by the products it sells. That's how you make money.

 

[Skreeper]

I'm not really interested in whether the papers are peer reviewed or not. Science is not a democracy.

Today's medicine is about money, not cures. Vitamin C and most useful cures are not patentable, so no money.

The ones left are obviously making money. They're not charities.

Vaccine manufacturers won't ever meet the goal posts without rigging, because vaccines are drugs, and are neither completely safe nor effective. Due to the lower standards required for vaccine testing, these are currently probably some of the most dangerous drugs on the market. With proper testing, vaccines would likely be taken off the market, but certainly not mandated.

Obviously, depends on the case and it's findings, but hard to imagine that with all the money of vaccine manufacturers, they'd lose a case were vaccines not the cause of the damage claimed.

As I stated, I understand the rebuttal case was based on Wakefield's paper having been retracted - a move that was politically forced, rather than due to any demonstrable dishonesty on Wakefield's part.

If you anti-vaxxers don't want to accept reality then that's fine, but don't be surprised when we stop your unvaxxinated children from meeting other kids. Hopefully in the near future we can extend that to adults as well, so that unvaxxinated people can't go to public places.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

If you anti-vaxxers don't want to accept reality then that's fine, but don't be surprised when we stop your unvaxxinated children from meeting other kids. Hopefully in the near future we can extend that to adults as well, so that unvaxxinated people can't go to public places.

If you pro-vaxxers really believe in your vaccines, then why are you so scared of our kids? Lol.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for creating two countries and letting the pro-vaxxers live in one (not the other, so they don't spread vaccine-induced infection). Just don't expect the anti-vaccination people to prop up with taxes your failing pro-vax country!

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

One debunked claim versus hundreds of thousands of doctors and medical professionals and literally tens of millions of people successfully vaccinated against polio.

Not exactly a hard choice

Long ago, I decided that I would rather be right than be popular.

 

[Skreeper]

If you pro-vaxxers really believe in your vaccines, then why are you so scared of our kids? Lol.

Because we have people that cannot get vaccines because of health reasons so they depend on herd immunity so they don't get sick.

Also vaccines dont magically make you 100% immune to all diseases. There still is a very small chance that you could get infected so an unvaxxinated kid with polio or measles can easily infect people.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Long ago, I decided that I would rather be right than be popular.

Fortunately, vaccine science is about being right, whereas believing in made-up anti-vax stuff from the internet is about being popular - at least among the conspiracy crowd.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Fortunately, vaccine science is about being right, whereas believing in made-up anti-vax stuff from the internet is about being popular - at least among the conspiracy crowd.

That's why you quoted "hundreds of thousands of doctors and medical professionals and literally tens of millions of people" getting it wrong with the polio vaccine?

One debunked claim versus hundreds of thousands of doctors and medical professionals and literally tens of millions of people successfully vaccinated against polio.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Because we have people that cannot get vaccines because of health reasons so they depend on herd immunity so they don't get sick.

Okay. So how is that different to anti-vaxxers? We have health reasons for not being vaccinated, so depend on dutiful herd members to take the risk for us. Thanks very much.

Also vaccines dont magically make you 100% immune to all diseases.

I'd argue they don't make you immune to any diseases, but I'm glad we could find some middle ground.

There still is a very small chance that you could get infected so an unvaxxinated kid with polio or measles can easily infect people.

So what you are saying is that it's the disease that poses the risk, not the vaccinated/unvaccinated status of the child? Surely then, it makes sense, to quarantine sick/diseased children, rather than vaccinated/unvaccinated? Just trying to inject a bit of sanity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not really interested in whether the papers are peer reviewed or not. Science is not a democracy.

...then that's a massive issue with your verification methodology. The most wild theories out there have someone with the title of "Doctor" (whether it be legit MD, or whether it be a fake doctor like a chiro or naturopath...) that's willing to put their name to it.

That's why the peer review process is vital. Without it, anyone with the title of "doctor" can just make things up (As Wakefield did, as Palmer did, and countless others) and people would accept it as truth.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Vaccine manufacturers won't ever meet the goal posts without rigging, because vaccines are drugs, and are neither completely safe nor effective. Due to the lower standards required for vaccine testing, these are currently probably some of the most dangerous drugs on the market. With proper testing, vaccines would likely be taken off the market, but certainly not mandated.

Again...I've asked this question before of others, and not a single anti-vaccine person has ever given a straight answer.

What are the supposed tests that you demand that vaccines are lacking? There have been extensive efficacy and safety tests performed. In every case, you guys always find some reason of why that particular test wasn't valid.

It seems more like people who want to believe in conspiracies will always just find some reason why it's a conspiracy and simply move the goal posts.

"Vaccines cause Autism, it's a conspiracy"
A: Actually they've been tested and proven to be safe

"The tests were rigged"
A: Actually, there were large scale tests that would've been to large to control the outcome

"The doctors were paid to fudge the results"


...etc. etc...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Here's a question, and it has to do with the logic of anti-vaccine people.

They make the claim that it's about making money for drug companies. My question is, if it were simply about that, then why wouldn't they simply inject someone with a placebo? Why something that gives someone a condition for which drugs are typically not prescribed?

If there were some nefarious plot to capitalize on medications people don't need, wouldn't they simply sell a marked up placebo, or sell a drug that intentionally gives someone a condition that requires one of their big money-maker drugs. For instance, injecting people with something that raises cholesterol or causes ED?


It seems to be a major hole in the logic here.
"Big pharma is just out to make money"...so they make money by injecting people with a product that has painfully low profit margins, and results in a disorder, whose treatment plan doesn't typically include the use of other pharmaceuticals???

I know I'm probably thinking too hard about it lol...but the logic (even if we operated on the false assumption that it does cause autism) makes zero sense.

Obviously it's just a case of people wanting to believe conspiracies...that's why there's such a huge overlap in conspiracy believers (if you find a person who thinks the moon landing was faked and the earth is flat and Obama was born in Kenya, more times than not, they're also anti-vaxx)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Long ago, I decided that I would rather be right than be popular.

hmmm...looks like you're neither

 

[Sam91]

hmmm...looks like you're neither

Ouch!

Surely, you meant that as a joke, right? No need to reply.

 

[JackRT]

Obviously it's just a case of people wanting to believe conspiracies...that's why there's such a huge overlap in conspiracy believers (if you find a person who thinks the moon landing was faked and the earth is flat and Obama was born in Kenya, more times than not, they're also anti-vaxx)

Over the last while I have been pondering a phenomenon that has actually been going for a very long time. I am referring to Denialists and Conspiracy Theorists. While they might seem to be different behaviours, I think they have a commonality in the sort of mind that subscribes to them. What also struck me as curious is the number of them that are centered around science, technology and medicine. Let me list a few.

>> the link between tobacco and cancer, particularly lung cancer

>> the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay

>> the role of chlorofluorinated hydrocarbons in the deterioration of the ozone layer

>> the build up of DDT in the food chain and its effect on both reproduction success in birds and human health.

>> the link between HIV and AIDS

>> the role of vaccination in causing other health issues

>> the historicity of the moon landings

>>UFOs and aliens

>>flat earth

>> chemtrails

>> the human role in CO2 production and climate change

This is hardly an exhaustive list and it is easy to also point out others that have very little, if any, linkage to science, technology or medicine. For example, the historicity of the Holocaust, of the Twin Towers, of the assassination of President Kennedy and of both President Obama's birth place and religion.

What most puzzles me most is the state of mind of both those who advocate these theories and those who so readily subscribe to them. I will throw out a few random thoughts here in the hope that they will generate some discussion.

>> fear and powerlessness --- people feel overwhelmed by events that are beyond their control and require a scapegoat on which to pin their frustration and their anger.

>> fear and ignorance --- people are frightened by their own lack of understanding of the concepts and issues involved and suggest that 'the intellectuals' are trying to put one over on them.

>> the 'little guy syndrome' --- people fear big organizations, big government in particular, and feel the need to lash out at them by suggesting that the little guy is being somehow exploited.

>>contrarianism --- some people love to be different just for the sake of it

>>special knowledge syndrome --- a form of elitism where people like to feel they have some special or secret knowledge that makes them feel smarter and/or better informed than the rest, even if it doesn't have much practical application.

>> religion and political ideologies --- in at least a few cases the culprit is viewed as challenging religious and/or political beliefs.

To illustrate this last point we could look at two examples.

Political --- the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay was opposed as a tactic by communists to poison the whole nation. This was particularly effective in the days of the 'red menace' but has a modern counterpart in the paranoia surrounding international terrorism.

Religious --- new technologies are viewed as challenging religious understandings. This goes back a long way in history. Two hundred years ago Timothy Dwight, Presbyterian minister and president of Yale University wrote “If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” Today we see an echo of that religious fear in the debate surrounding stem cell research.

My final observation is that it seems to me that denialists, conspiracy theorists, and biblical fundamentalists / creationists are often the same people.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My final observation is that it seems to me that denialists, conspiracy theorists, and biblical fundamentalists / creationists are often the same people.

For many conspiracies, that's spot on...

However, the medical ones...I've noticed that there are a fair amount from multiple camps.

You obviously have the folks you're referring to who've been wooed by Chiropractors by their subtle nods to creationism and other fundamentalist principles...so because they've told them what they want to hear in other regards, they're inclined to want to believe what they say about vaccines as well.

...but from my personal experience, I personally know numerous "new-age" "hippy-ish" people who get wrapped up in the anti-vaxx and anti-GMO hysteria and they're either into new-age non-descriptive 'spirituality', or they're atheists. They tend to be wrapped up in the "anything that doesn't meet my standard of 'natural' must not be good"