Tags
antivaxxers, ashland, autism, bad astronomy, discover, immunizations, jenny mccarthy, oregon, phil plait, public health, questions, skeptic, vaccinations
There are times that items I find online irk me. Such is the case with a blog post by Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy blog that is run through the Discover magazine website. According to Plait’s bio, “He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.”
While I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a scientist, I follow various scientific topics with avid interest. I can, in turn, be both gullible and skeptical, hopefully more of the latter than the former, but I’m willing to admit that I’m human and I can be taken in periodically. Hardcore skeptics, I’ve noticed, tend to want to paint those who disagree with them as being overly emotional and illogical – in other words, not like them – and will quickly dismiss anything their adversaries say. After all, they have Hard Science to back up their arguments.
Such is the case with Plait, who has posted several times about childhood vaccinations. The blog post that inspired me to write this is called Fight harder for vaccination! and in it, Plait says that model and actress “Jenny McCarthy is a walking antiscience disaster of the first order,” because she claims that vaccinations caused her son’s autism and by changing his diet, she cured him. Plait goes on to say that McCarthy is “a major public health threat.”
In several posts he’s done on the topic of vaccinations, Plait has called antivaxxers liars, antiscience, and “the Number One health hazard in America“. Further, he states, “Antivaxxers are not basing their conclusions on reason; it is a religious belief with them.“
While Plait is quick to negate antivaxxers with strong language, what I’m seeing in his posts is that he is just as emotional as the people on the other side of his arguments. In fact, his forcefulness on the topic comes across as the same sort of “religious belief” that he accuses the antivaxxers of.
What I’m not seeing in Plait’s posts is evidence that he has talked in-depth with any antivaxxers from the standpoint of a true scientist, without his own preconceived notions getting in the way. In short, he’s not asking them any questions.
If I were a scientist, here are some of the questions I’d be asking:
Why do antivaxxers continue to believe there is a connection between autism and vaccinations?
What sources are antivaxxers using to come to their conclusions?
What caused antivaxxers to come to the belief that vaccinations are dangerous? (While many scientists downplay the importance of case studies, they can give scientists insight into what they are trying to study.)
What role have health care providers played in parents’ decision not to immunize?
Are antivaxxers truly antiscience, or are they pro-science, but can’t get their lingering questions about vaccinations answered to their satisfaction?
From the standpoint of a parent, here are the lingering questions I’d ask of scientists:
If vaccinations wear off, and most adults don’t keep up with booster shots, why aren’t we seeing outbreaks of diseases among adults? (Or are we?) How does herd immunity truly work?
What are the effects of multiple vaccinations on the human body? Each supposedly gets tested on its own, but are they ever tested to see how they interact with each other?
What are the side effects of each vaccination? Who is most susceptible to these side effects? Children with a particular genetic disposition? Highly allergic children? Are side effects properly reported?
For whom are vaccinations contraindicated? Are doctors or pubic health workers knowledgeable enough to know when a vaccination shouldn’t be given?
How long does each vaccination get tested before it is added to the regimen of other required vaccinations?
Can vaccinations, in concert with particular environmental factors, trigger ill effects in the human body?
At what point do we decide that we’re vaccinating too much? (In other words, how many vaccinations are too many?) And why are we vaccinating everyone for relatively minor diseases (i.e. chicken pox)?
Vaccination is a medical procedure. Given this, why aren’t vaccination schedules tailored to the individual?
Antivaxxers want to be heard, not shouted at and called names. While Plait may not want to listen, someone does. In Ashland, Oregon, parents are being paid to talk to government health officials about why they don’t want to vaccinate their children. Ashland has the distinction of having one of the highest rates of vaccination exemptions in the country. Because they are choosing this route, the community would make a great control group against which to compare those who are getting immunizations. Instead of dismissing antivaxxers, we need to engage them.
when nathan was born, my doctor gave me a stack of papers on vaccinating, and info from people who go the other route, AND encourages me to do my own research. he encouraged me to make my own decision, although he did recommend getting our child vaccinated. (which we decided to do.)
you’re right that many people on the “science” side are just as emotional as the antivaxxers, but medical journals do show the “science” side of the antivaxx question. the propblem is that most people don’t have easy access to those journals, and that info isn’t what’s made most publicly known. People listen to Jenny McCarthy instead.
I understand people’s hesitation with vaccinating (I hesitated with the chicken pox vaccine, for instance) but I don’t think it’s fair to imply that scientists haven’t asked the antivaxxers the right questions — they have, it just doesn’t make as good a story for the media is jenny mccarthy’s version of the “research.”
Make sense?
“just as emotional as the people on the other side of his arguments”
I find this to be the case in many situations …the global warming debate for one. Personally, I think fault not only comes from a strong emotional attachment, but from a language/semantic divide when we go about expressing ourselves. Carefully outlining our arguments or concerns as you just did goes miles toward a healthy, mutual understanding …if we took the time to step aside from our emotions that is.
Wow, you’ve given me lots to think about. I’d be really happy to have answers to some of these questions. I try and stay out of these kinds of debates because there are to many of them and people get very hot under the collar when you don’t agree with what they’re saying. But it is a really, really interesting and scary thing. When my boys were young, we just gave them what we were told to but there weren’t near as many as now. I don’t agree with some of “today’s” vaccines. My grandchildren have been given some that I never would have agreed with. It’s just that I don’t feel all of them are necessary.
Keeping warm today Mary????
Erin – I wish more doctors were as open as yours was. When we were having to make decisions on vaccinations, we did not have easy access to information. Nor did we have the internet so that we could look for scientific data. And you’re correct on the lack of access to scientific journal articles. I’ve often come across links to journal articles that are locked down and unavailable to the general public. This drives me bonkers. I get the feeling that the scientific community doesn’t want us to have this access, perhaps because they feel the general public won’t understand what’s been written.
Troy – The language/semantic divide is a tough one to overcome. It’s darned near impossible to choose one’s words carefully when all riled up. I think most of us could use some training in this respect, so we don’t start name-calling and foaming at that mouth when we’re passionate about an issue. It doesn’t get us anywhere and I think deep down we know it’s unproductive; we just can’t help ourselves.
Hi, Joy – There are so many factors to consider with health and wellness issues. I think historically that when vaccines were first introduced, people didn’t trust them. I think we’ve reached another point of distrust, some of which has been caused by the overabundance of vaccines.
I hope that the current heated debate can be cooled down enough so that people on both sides of the argument can get what they need. Provaxxers want herd immunity and are working toward solid public health and disease irradication. Antivaxxers want to know that the procedure as a whole (taking into consideration actual side effects, numbers & types of vaccines) contributes to health, rather than tears it down. Plus, they want to know that they can easily opt out of particular vaccines if there is a contraindication. I don’t necessarily think a blanket conscientious objection is where most antivaxxers want to be on the issue, but that’s what people are forced into if they object to one vaccination or a few. You either have to opt in completely, or opt out completely. That’s not good for public health. (In my experience, doctors are not helpful on the contraindication thing at all, so kudos to Erin’s doctor.)
Btw, yes, I’m keeping warm, but I’m also avoiding going outside. Daughter is a brave one. She’s going sledding with friends.
I have given thanks more than one for my awesome doctor. We take Nathan to a family practicioner, not a pediatrician, because I was raised on (and buy into) the idea of treating the whole person – whole family, even. so as long as I am nursing (yep, still at it), nathan and I have “his” well-child checks TOGETHER where all of the issues can be treated.
to be fair, he DID encourage us to get Nathan vaccinated, but has never forced us into any decision, medically (including when he was admitted to the hospital for rapid weight loss at 7 months… he recommended it, but left the ultimate decision up to us… even on something that BIG… which I appreciated). And we could easily opt out of any vaccines we weren’t comfortable with (remember my earlier comment about chicken pox).
So yes – kudos to him.
Coming from a family that has had bad bad reactions to vaccines I will say it is a very important subject for us. The biggest problem I see is the misinformation that is given out to parents and in a very emotionally manipulative way – Vax now or your child will die and it will be all your fault and won’t you regret your silly, uninformed decisions!!!! Most of the diseases that we vaccinate for now ARE in fact, fairly mild if acquired in childhood – measles, mumps, rubella, even polio in most otherwise healthy individuals. OF COURSE, there are cases where some children get very sick. But this is true of any illness. You can catch a cold, get a secondary infection, develop pnemonia and die. When I was a child there were 8 vaccines required before school age. The current CDC schedule has 36! The CDC recommendations actually come more from a public health perspective and that is where the biggest problem lies. Newborns are given Hep B NOT because they are at risk as babies BUT because statistically, a huge portion of babies are never taken to a doctor again. It’s about getting the shots in when the babies are accessible before they grow into adults who are at greater risk for certain diseases. It is also why there are so many shots so early. Again, statistically, the number of people who show up for well-baby visits goes down with each new visit (i.e. more people show up for the 2 week visit, less for the 1 month, even less for the 2 month, etc . . .).
Do you think that Plait adopted his particular approach after noting the popularity of Rush Limbaugh? Just a thought.
I do have to wonder, Martha. I’m tempted to use a Dr. Phil-ism on him: “How’s that workin’ for ya?” If Plait’s stated goal is to get more people to vaccinate, calling antivaxxers names and throwing invective at them is the wrong way to do it.