Talk:Anti-vaccination movement

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Vaccine denialism)
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here.
Icon pseudoscience green.svg

This denialism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>


[edit] Nature woo, "soft" anti-vaxxers - do we have enough on them?

Being familiar with a debate over a Danish facebook group promoting "natural" immunity through deliberate infection with diseases, rather than vaccination, I wonder if the RW article could need such a section? These are not the U.S.-style über-conspiracists, but appears to be the nature woo "vaccinations are unnatural and healthy living, a good diet and natural infections are better"-crowd. It has generated quite a controversy in a country where vaccine denial, especially the "hard" one, tend to be given short shrift and one Danish father has apparently reported the infection facebook group to the police (with the argument that as his 3-month old child is too young for vaccination the infection group puts all such cases in potential risk). If anything concrete comes out of the report to the police, it would make an interesting addition and this vaccination debate also includes suggestions (so far rejected by the political level) that vaccinations be mandated by law (something that polls suggests that around 75% of Danes favour). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They are part of an anti-vax movement, so they're included in this page's broad sweep, and you say they're making news, so I say a bit under purported reasons about naturalistic fallacy and/or (and) an entry under the Media stuff#Scandinavia bit would be cool. PacWalker 06:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll add something if there's some actual development in the story (i.e. on mandatory vaccination or police action against the infection group) beyond the current issues (mainly encouragement to vaccinate and public and health professionals' outrage at the infection group).
What I think the article might mention is this idea of deliberately infecting your children "naturally" and possibly highlighting different "flavours" of anti-vaxxers, for instance under the Anti-vaccination proponents section. I think I heard some years ago about a veritable cottage industry/scam selling purportedly infected items by mail catering to parents who preferred "natural" infection to vaccination. Currently, the RW article seems to drown these nature wooers in a sea of Andrew Wakefield/Jenna McCarthy/anti-government U.S. style politics with a dash of religious fundamentalism (incl. Islamists). Sure, the nature wooers are just as non-scientific as these others, but they don't fit the profile of either "hard" conspiracy theory ("It's all Big Pharma and/or Government what dunnit'!") or religious fundamentalism ("Vaccines are SATANIC!"). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think what this discussion shows, there is no movement or subculture against vaccinations. It is a collection of people who choose not to inject their bodies for a myriad of reasons. An African that can't afford a vaccination is not the same as a Boulder,CO liberal who doesn't feel he has to infect his kid with an inoculation when everyone else already has, or the same as the people who had measles as a kid and don't see what the big deal is. I think the authors are taking a complex but interesting story and making a joke out of it with the nasty smug language, "quotations", italics, and the dismissive anti-vaxxer name calling. This article is crap in my opinion. And by the way, I fully support vaccination for all.

Well shoot, let me drag out my (not green) writing pen then. PacWalker 07:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
How about a section on "reasons people are anti-vaccination"? "Reasons" could be in scare quotes or not. Is there any mention of pox parties yet? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"♫♬ We represent the Lolly Pox Guild…" Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] A bunch of guys who can't distinguish "the content of a sentence" from "the wording of a sentence"

"The anti-vaccination movement is an irrational trend of mistrust of vaccination that blames vaccines (or their ingredients, dosage, or administration) for a wide range of health problems, often childhood illnesses"

You're implying the ingredients, dosage, or administration of vaccines are not responsible for any health problem? It's appalling that veterinaries are more considearate of dogs that pediatricians of kids:
Vaccination of dogs - Controversy
"...The 2010 vaccination guidelines [1] published by the WSAVA (World Small Animal Veterinary Association) reduce the number of vaccines which should be considered core for canines, as well as recommending less frequent vaccine administration..."
Being "treated like a dog" may end up as a positive connotation (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If you get to assume we're claiming vaccines have no side effects, then do I get to assume you agree with all the claims made by anti-vaxxers? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Just make up what the other person thinks and any argument is easy :-) The only argument left for anti-vaxxers is to badly misrepresent what other people think. The side effects, and probabilities, of vaccines are well documented by actual scientific studies anti-vaxxers tend to ignore or think are conspiracies. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] This is the most stupid thing ever

You have to vaccinate. Why, why?! do we even put up with this anymore. The people who refuse to jab should be stripped of benefits in society, because they are not helping of anyone's health. XY007 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's only punishing poor idiots, not rich ones... CorruptUser (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Even worse. XY007 02:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Why the vaccine-injured are left to rot.

Official acknowledgements of vaccine injuries are forbidden by law.

Rules and regulations | Friday, June 1, 1984 | Vol. 49, no. 107 | Federal register
any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives.

People in the US are not entitled to be informed about any legitimate concern regarding the safety of the vaccines recommended to them. Whisleblowers are to be actively suppressed irrespective of the legitimacy of their arguments. If anything goes wrong, your reward for risking your beloved ones for the "common good" is to be abandoned to your fate. That's the best case scenario, the worst is being jailed for abusing your child (shaken baby syndrome). Wow! I'm speechless. (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

if only you were speechless. BicyclewheelModerator 11:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to a website that doesn't look like it'll give me a virus? CorruptUser (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
What sets my alarm bells off is that all that can be provided is a very small snippet from a document as accessible as the Federal Register. It's not even a complete sentence. For those wishing to see the context google "federal register Vol. 49, no. 107" and download the PDF. The point the paper is making is that the trials done in 1962 for the oral polio vaccine had technical flaws. However, given the well documented effect of the polio vaccine - deaths reduced from 18,000 to 8 - and the need to ensure herd immunity - a phrase not used but implied - it is felt that the flaws in the 62 trials should not be allowed to stop immunisation. A long way from what our troll-de-jour implies. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
And here I was thinking "Organic Lifestyle Magazine" had standards. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 21:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] CDC allegations

I made the following edit but it has been reverted:

In August 2014, a CDC researcher, William Thompson published a statement claiming that a 2004 article omitted information that suggested some vaccinated African-American children were at higher risk of autism.[50] A study published by Brian S Hooker claimed to show evidence of the vaccine-autism link following re-analysis of the omitted data.[51] This claim has been comprehensively refuted[52] and Hooker's paper was withdrawn from the journal Translational Neurodegeneration.

If this is in the wrong place, please move it rather than revert, or explain what's wrong with it. Thanks. Huttoldboys (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

These "Studies" have been debunked and refuted many, many, times. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools