Posts
Shortly after creating a Facebook group that dared to not freak out about vaccinations, we knew that it was only a matter of time before someone came knocking demanding to know “Why aren’t you freaking out about vaccinations? Haven’t you read this?” A statement preceded by a series of sources that we obviously have not read because if we had, there would be no way that we’d still think vaccines are ok.
This group has been an exercise in patience. One of the unfortunate side effects of teh internetz is that anyone with even moderate literacy can access out-of-context information, write an impassioned blog about it, and contribute to the spread of panic with very little effort. The result is that people doing research on a controversial topic such as vaccines end up: 1) educated despite the digressions, 2) confused, or 3) deeply passionate about something that is completely wrong.
Pictured: Totally not fear-mongering propaganda from an anti-vaxx website.
It is the people in category 3 that we will discuss in detail. Now, we understand that not everyone can be an expert. That was the point of creating the Facebook group in the first place – it was a way for people to consult a rational evidence-based resource and have people available to answer questions about H1N1. But arguing something so very passionately when you are not an expert can lead to some of the following faux pas.
The mistake people make, I think, is that they assume this is a topic with “sides”. They say things like “I think it’s important to present both sides”. (Note: This is a fallacy known as the false dilemma). The truth, however, is not a side. In no way are evidence-based knowledge and ignorant fear mongering equal sides to the same coin that should be equally represented.
Misinformation is notoriously easy to disseminate online and this Facebook group has proven no different. The trouble with being on the side of evidence and scientific consensus is that the burden of proof is suddenly on us to disprove every false claim that gets thrown our way (which is contrary to how logic and science work). One person who kept joining the group (and then apparently quitting after posting such misinformation), Cameron Wigmore, made several comments and accusations endemic to the anti-vaccination “side”, such as these common logical fallacies:
- Appeals (popularity, emotion, etc.): Links to known anti-vaccination propaganda groups.
- Inconsistency, unstated major premise: Comments accusing people of fear-mongering while in the same breath presenting vaccines as weapons of mass destruction.
- Red herring, poisoning the well, slippery slope: Links to irrelevant sources intended to scare people (for example a link with a picture of a child with Eczema Vaccinatum – an extremely rare condition associated with the no longer routinely-administered smallpox vaccine).
- Non sequitur: Comments about energy and climate change.
- Special pleading: Discussions that included phrases like “it’s just the measles!”.
- Ad hominem: "O.K. gang. Pat yourselves on the back and keep up the group think" and "Follow the herd sheeple!" and "I will give up on this closed minded group now and get back to changing minds in person." etc.
- Argument from authority, ad hominem, special pleading, moving the goalposts: "Of course I have no "evidence", and I understand that correlation does not prove causation. Most people with vaccine injuries are unable to "prove" it, and most go unreported. What I know is from first hand personal experience. I know what happened. You can dismiss it if you want."
So my only retort to this kind of uncouth behaviour is to say that there is no point in downplaying the impact of illness. We know illness is risky and we have a powerful tool at our disposal to prevent illness from spreading and people from dying. Yes, there are rare side-effects to the vaccine in some people. There are also rare events that happen after vaccines that have nothing to do with the injection that are falsely associated because of their temporal relation. But there are also risks with illness. As the risk of illness far outweighs the risk of the vaccine, and the vaccine risks are rare, the sensible choice is to be vaccinated.
5 comments:
My god that's a great picture. It's practically self-parody... except that no where near enough people are in on the joke, and too many think it's the real thing.
I was considering just last night about the ridiculous position organizations like the CDC & WHO get into. If they do their job well it makes it look to the layman (I.E. Far too close to everybody.) as if their job is un-necessary. Yet if they didn't do their job - global disaster.
One word: Thank-less.
That's the paradox. When public health works, nothing happens.
Hi Kimberly
I'm not sure you've represented fairly all sides of the argument.
My understanding of vaccination is that it 1) depresses the immune system of the recipient overall, 2) guarantees nothing, 3) offers a certain-percentage efficacy, 4) has a 14-day delay before full efficiency, 5) has an x-time effectiveness, and 6) is only useful for one strain of the virus
...and I haven't even touched on the weirdest (from my point of view) one that Canadian doctors and hospitals have ceased testing for H1N1 and are assuming it is the cause of the symptoms presented to them that are consistent.
Please let me know if I'm wrong on any of these. I really don't know and am not proffering expertise - just concern. My issue is presenting vaccination as a panacea is disingenuous (at least) by health professionals.
1. The vaccine has no immunosupressive effects.
2 & 3. Efficacy is related to multiple factors, but especially to the antigen match - how closely the vaccine matches the virus. Data demonstrate that the circulating virus continues to match the vaccine due to no antigen "drift" (ref: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/international/). For a more detailed description of efficacy measures and flu vaccines, see Dr. Crislip's superb discussion at Science-Based Medicine at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040.
4. Onset of efficacy is delayed and peaks after 10-14 days or so. But it's not "nothing, then all" - it's progressive.
5. The effectiveness is related to whether you encounter the virus again. Consider that this version of H1N1 resembles a strain that circulated in the 50's - so those exposed at the time have some immunity to the current strain.
6. Ongoing usefulness depends on future antigenic shift/drift. Significant changes mean each year's vaccine varies in components. This strain may come back, it may not.
Influenza, due to it's ability to mutate, is a challenging virus to immunize against. But this strain of H1N1 is one to which no natural immunity exists in most of the population. Data exists to suggest the vaccine should be very effective. It will not be 100% effective in everyone. It is not a magic bullet or a panacea. No health professional claims it to be a panacea. But it is far more safe than the disease itself, and should reduce the burden of sickness, hospitalization and death.
As Dr. Crislip concludes, "Do flu vaccines work? It depends on what the meaning of is is. If you are simplistic and like binary answers, yes or no, then you can pick yes or pick no, and find studies to support your contention that the vaccine doesn’t work."
In addition to what Scott already pointed out above: The vaccine is not harmful, the flu is very harmful. There is no good reason not to get vaccinated if there is nothing preventing you from it (such as an allergy or other medical condition). And in Canada it doesn't even cost us anything.
Post a Comment