• jorndoe
    3.2k
    The scientific results, driven by evidence (and related reasoning), inform medical doctors, except those on the fringe.
    They tend to follow a contemporary expression of the Hippocratic Oath (dating sometime between -500 and -400), which is informed ethics.

    This comes through both as reasonable and responsible (to me at least).

    Some folk choose to not follow the advice of their accredited family doctor.
    That may (or may not) be within their right, which is political, except if their choice has consequences, be it to children or someone involuntarily impacted, in which case they're irresponsible.
    After all, we don't accept just anyone walking around with hand grenades in public either.

    Vaccine controversies (Wikipedia article)

    cjmasmtjs7r92est.jpg
    1. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? (12 votes)
        Yes, I believe vaccination causes autism
          0%
        No, I don't believe vaccination causes autism
        100%
        Other (explain in a post, or sit on the fence)
          0%
  • jorndoe
    3.2k
    In my virtual travels, I've come across a few varieties of views/arguments.

    Some appear to be motivated by a general distrust, an anti-establishment sentiment.
    Those folk seek to subvert any perceived authority, and medical science then gets in the way (usually via the political aspect).
    Many assorted assertions can be found here, including that medical schools (like Oxford, Harvard and Karolinska) are lying, "Big Pharma" lies, the government lies, and family physicians withhold truth of the matter (perhaps due to peer pressure or pride).
    There are other, parallel movements.

    Some hold that "parents know best", and if they associate health problems of their children with vaccination, then medicine is to blame.
    Jenny McCarthy comes to mind.

    Others generalize from events that suggest a conspiracy may have taken place.
    Allegedly the CDC in the US has swept some evidence under the rug, that might suggest vaccination could cause autism.
    Collecting examples of malpractice, errors and wrong doing, seems to have become a hobby here, for better or worse.

    It's worth noting that it's not terribly hard to find trained scientists that has jumped on the anti-vaxxer bandwagon.


    15 Myths About Anti-Vaxxers, Debunked (Tara Haelle, Forbes, 2015)

    No MMR-Autism Link in Large Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Kids (Autism Speaks, referring to The American Medical Association, 2015)
    Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses (Clinical Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Press, 2009)
    Vaccines and Autism - A Deadly Manufactroversy (Harriet Hall, 2009)
    Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On? (Chris Mooney, Discover Magazine, 2009)
    The Autism-Vaccine Myth (Emily Willingham and Laura Helft, PBS)
    A Wild-Polio Outbreak in Nigeria (Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, 2016)

    Meet The Children (Barbara Loe Fisher, VaxTruth, 1996)
    Immunization Ploys (Neil Z Miller, 1995)
    How Big Pharma Dupes Medical Journals (Antony Barnett, Guardian, 2003)
    March 2015 Settlements in Vaccine Court: 117 Vaccine Injuries and Deaths (Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News, 2015)
    The US Government Has Paid out $3 Billion to Vaccine-Injured Americans Since 1989 (Lily Dane, The Daily Sheeple, 2015)
    Vaccination: The Hidden Facts; Chapter 11 (Ian Sinclair, 1992)
    Doctors speak out: Vaccines don't work, but do cause brain damage and death
    Vaccines: U.S. Centers for Disease Control Manipulated Data, Covered-Up Higher Incidence of Autism in African American Boys (Global Research (referring to Focus for Health), 2014)
    Vaccination Statistics (Mercola)
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    To even ask the question is already to give too much credit to the anti-vaxxer wingnuts.
  • BC
    13.1k
    There is a set of people who

    • distrust authority and/or expertise
    • distrust the government
    • distrust large institutions (like WHO, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, etc.)
    • distrust public water treatment
    • distrust multiply validated theories about disease
    • and more...

    These are the people who buy bottled water, even though they live in cities with excellent public water, and even though the bottled water is no better (it often is local tap water); people who trust homeopaths, naturopaths, quackopractors, and psychopaths more than medical doctors; believe in conspiracies; trust the counterculture because it is the counterculture; believe that meditation, prayer, positive thinking, up-beat attitudes, and so forth make a significant difference in disease outcomes (sorry, nothing fails like prayer); fasten on to "new diseases" like celeriac disease, lactose intolerance, "multi-chemical sensitivities", think massage which involves no physical contact by the masseur (energy adjustments) improve physical function; and more. Much, much more.

    It isn't stupidity, it's anti rationalism. It's superstitious thinking. It's a way of claiming person authority: ("I know what is best for my children. No vaccination for them, nosiree. Whoever heard of anybody getting polio and tetanus anyway?")

    When AIDS surfaced in the early 1980s, before the HIV test; before even the bad side-effect loaded drug AZT, AIDS victims (oops, sorry -- they aren't victims...) flocked to whatever group offered comfort--and thank god there were some! Bogus therapy can be comforting. Quacky groups can provide real community; if you have nothing to lose, by all means meditate with candles and healing crystals and have a Reiki 'therapist' wave their hands around you. If it makes you feel better, go for it -- as long as nothing else is available.

    What was pathetic was that some of these groups continued on spouting this stuff, after the highly effective anti-retroviral therapies came on line. Some people had a "medical libertarian streak" which led them doubt the whole business about retroviruses.

    At the other extreme are people who are so fearful of actual germs, that they maintain home environments which are so deficient in natural substances (like dirt, pollen, bacteria, etc.) that their children's immune systems don't learn enough about the real world and go crazy with allergic reactions when they encounter the real world. [This theory might be erroneous. Don't stop cleaning the bathroom and kitchen, please.]

    I'm sympathetic with the ignorant and deluded, in so far as the tons of good, solid, reliable, useful information are not always accessible and actionable; are not always readable (too complicated); and aren't always practical. If you live in Brazil and just got pregnant, there may not be much you can do about avoiding mosquitos and Zika virus.
  • jorndoe
    3.2k
    To even ask the question is already to give too much credit to the anti-vaxxer wingnuts.Thorongil

    :D Had to try being impartial. Not all that successful.
    I suppose there is the political question, like enforcing vaccination?
  • jorndoe
    3.2k
    I'm sympathetic with the ignorant and deluded, in so far as the tons of good, solid, reliable, useful information are not always accessible and actionable; are not always readable (too complicated); and aren't always practical.Bitter Crank

    Right, there is a point to be made I suppose.

    Also, as far as I'm concerned, the medical consensus isn't really replaceable, but can (at most) be supplemented, by whichever alternatives people may find comforting.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.