Vax vs Anti-vax
March 18, 2012 9:27 PM
Please help me understand the infant vaccination/anti-vaccination debate.
I am a dyed in the wool, pro scientific method, tertiary-educated-with-a-science-degree kind of guy. I have studied and read extensively about the eradication of disease through public health initiatives in the 20th century. Unsurprisingly, I am pro-vaccination, although not necessarily for every disease. To date, I have dismissed the anti-vax movement as the irresponsible rantings of ignorant hippies, and whilst I still believe this to an extent, I feel the time has come for me to understand the debate a little better.
Can anyone point me to any blogs or articles that might serve as a jumping off point? I'm less interested in reading partisan statements from either side and more looking for writings that seek to analyse the debate and evaluate the arguments put forward by both sides.
I am a dyed in the wool, pro scientific method, tertiary-educated-with-a-science-degree kind of guy. I have studied and read extensively about the eradication of disease through public health initiatives in the 20th century. Unsurprisingly, I am pro-vaccination, although not necessarily for every disease. To date, I have dismissed the anti-vax movement as the irresponsible rantings of ignorant hippies, and whilst I still believe this to an extent, I feel the time has come for me to understand the debate a little better.
Can anyone point me to any blogs or articles that might serve as a jumping off point? I'm less interested in reading partisan statements from either side and more looking for writings that seek to analyse the debate and evaluate the arguments put forward by both sides.
How about this article from Discover magazine.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 10:35 PM on March 18, 2012
posted by treehorn+bunny at 10:35 PM on March 18, 2012
[One comment deleted already. Emphasis: Op is looking for writings that seek to analyse the debate. We won't be having Vax-anti-Vax arguments here, or just sharing our opinions. ]
posted by taz at 10:38 PM on March 18, 2012
posted by taz at 10:38 PM on March 18, 2012
The Cochrane Collaboration publishes summaries of peer reviewed research on health issues.
Here is their summary on the measles, mumps rubella vaccine, its effectiveness, and lack of links to various things, and the types of studies they are summarizing.
evidence based medicine, FTW
posted by chapps at 10:49 PM on March 18, 2012
Here is their summary on the measles, mumps rubella vaccine, its effectiveness, and lack of links to various things, and the types of studies they are summarizing.
evidence based medicine, FTW
posted by chapps at 10:49 PM on March 18, 2012
You could really do worse than reading old MeFi threads on the subject: 1 2 3 4 5 6.
Pity the mod who has to watch this thread.
posted by gerryblog at 11:35 PM on March 18, 2012
Pity the mod who has to watch this thread.
posted by gerryblog at 11:35 PM on March 18, 2012
Actually, can I seek further clarification before I give an offtopic answer..... I've read a few posited sociological theories as to how the anti-vaccination movement started. Is that the kind of thing you're looking for? I'm read some stuff from academics which I"m trying to source for you, but it just occurred to me that that might not be exactly what you want.
posted by taff at 1:01 AM on March 19, 2012
posted by taff at 1:01 AM on March 19, 2012
Cheers, Taff - that sounds fascinating. I'm just as open to understanding the parameters of the debate as I am understanding the emergence of the debate as a social theory. If nothing else it might add some context as to the origins of the values/beliefs.
posted by tim_in_oz at 1:10 AM on March 19, 2012
posted by tim_in_oz at 1:10 AM on March 19, 2012
This is a bit of a start, but not really what I was remembering. Will continue to look.
posted by taff at 1:28 AM on March 19, 2012
posted by taff at 1:28 AM on March 19, 2012
In the US, I believe that it is chiropractors that have really pushed this issue.
The idea being something like, if you spinal cord is adjusted correctly,
your body can fend of these diseases itself.
here is an wikipedia article about the issue
and another perspective from the american academy of pediatrics
posted by Flood at 4:51 AM on March 19, 2012
The idea being something like, if you spinal cord is adjusted correctly,
your body can fend of these diseases itself.
here is an wikipedia article about the issue
and another perspective from the american academy of pediatrics
posted by Flood at 4:51 AM on March 19, 2012
I have dismissed the anti-vax movement as the irresponsible rantings of ignorant hippies
If only it were so simple. There are reports that highly affluent, highly educated people are deciding not to vaccinate their children!
The strongest argument against vaccination had apparent legitimacy: A 1998 article (warning: pdf) in the widely read and highly regarded journal The Lancet. The work has now been thoroughly debunked, but it did a lot of damage. In fact, I think more people know about the apparent link than know that it doesn't exist.
As for the wacky stuff, I don't know much, save that there's a group of nutjobs here in Australia called the AVN ("Australian Vaccination Network", a misnomer) that continue to spew out misinformation (they're not the only group I'm sure). The "Stop the Australian Vaccination Network" that has arisen in response. I'll never link to the AVN personally, but if you're really looking for partisan views on the wrong side of the issue you know how to google.
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:56 AM on March 19, 2012
If only it were so simple. There are reports that highly affluent, highly educated people are deciding not to vaccinate their children!
The strongest argument against vaccination had apparent legitimacy: A 1998 article (warning: pdf) in the widely read and highly regarded journal The Lancet. The work has now been thoroughly debunked, but it did a lot of damage. In fact, I think more people know about the apparent link than know that it doesn't exist.
As for the wacky stuff, I don't know much, save that there's a group of nutjobs here in Australia called the AVN ("Australian Vaccination Network", a misnomer) that continue to spew out misinformation (they're not the only group I'm sure). The "Stop the Australian Vaccination Network" that has arisen in response. I'll never link to the AVN personally, but if you're really looking for partisan views on the wrong side of the issue you know how to google.
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:56 AM on March 19, 2012
The best thing I've ever read about this debate and how it came to be is Seth Mnookin's The Panic Virus.
posted by longdaysjourney at 5:35 AM on March 19, 2012
posted by longdaysjourney at 5:35 AM on March 19, 2012
When dealing with beliefs on issues of illness/health, often people's reasonings on these subjects are influenced by subscribing to the just world theory. You see this elsewhere (eg a lot of the way cancer patients' illnesses are framed, or the discussion on obesity effects), but it can apply to the anti-vaccine movement as well. That is, the inherent, unspoken framing of the pro-vaccine side is "your infant might be one of those that develop autism, because some infants do, due to a yet-to-be determined factor. Maybe it's a genetic fluke, maybe some other factor; regardless, there is nothing you can do about it." As autism initially presents in the very young, one can't blame the usual factors (exercise level, smoking, diet (well, some do), lack of willpower to overcome a mental illness, level of "fight" or "survivor"-ness, promiscuity, vices, taking enough vitamins, etc). One some level, many people like to think that there is something an individual could have done to avoid a disorder/illness; otherwise it reinforces the idea that we and our children are all susceptible to negative outcomes we have limited to no control over avoiding. To some, the idea that malicious pharmaceuticals companies produce vaccines that cause neurological disorders we can then avoid fits their world view--and is preferable to the alternative world view. Thus, one believes that "health's a choice," 100%. Thus, the argument for vaccines is implicitly arguing that your child's health is not 100% a choice--that's a much tougher point to sell to parents.
If you have access through your library, you can find discussion on just world theory's impact on beliefs here in journals of varying impact factors. Also, may see relevant discussion under the search topic of "illness stigma" or attitudes relating to genetic disorders.
You might also find it useful to look up articles on the topic of consumer choice--eg consumers overestimating the diversity of outcomes available as a result of product choice, or overvaluing other consumers' knowledge. Perhaps you can draw an analogy between those consumer beliefs and those of parents that do or don't chose to vaccinate, especially if they view medicine/health as a commodity one purchases.
posted by neda at 8:48 AM on March 19, 2012
If you have access through your library, you can find discussion on just world theory's impact on beliefs here in journals of varying impact factors. Also, may see relevant discussion under the search topic of "illness stigma" or attitudes relating to genetic disorders.
You might also find it useful to look up articles on the topic of consumer choice--eg consumers overestimating the diversity of outcomes available as a result of product choice, or overvaluing other consumers' knowledge. Perhaps you can draw an analogy between those consumer beliefs and those of parents that do or don't chose to vaccinate, especially if they view medicine/health as a commodity one purchases.
posted by neda at 8:48 AM on March 19, 2012
[More comments deleted. Once again, the OP is looking for writings that seek to analyse the debate. Sorry, but this is absolutely not the place for a chatty discussion, arguing with other posters or sharing personal opinions. ]
posted by taz at 10:42 AM on March 19, 2012
posted by taz at 10:42 AM on March 19, 2012
Came in to suggest The Panic Virus, but longdaysjourney beat me to it. :) That book does a great job at covering the science, history of the movement, and major arguments of the debate. I read it twice. I'd also suggest Seth Mnookin's blog posts over at PLoS (Public Library of Science).
Paul Offit's Deadly Choices is another interesting read, but may be considered "biased" as Dr. Offit is a vaccine developer who gets funding from pharma, and seemingly embodies evil, according to the anti-vax side. YMMV.
PBS's Frontline did an episode on the vaccine debate, and the website has supplemental material that you may find helpful.
posted by southpaw at 12:03 PM on March 19, 2012
Paul Offit's Deadly Choices is another interesting read, but may be considered "biased" as Dr. Offit is a vaccine developer who gets funding from pharma, and seemingly embodies evil, according to the anti-vax side. YMMV.
PBS's Frontline did an episode on the vaccine debate, and the website has supplemental material that you may find helpful.
posted by southpaw at 12:03 PM on March 19, 2012
Point of correction: it is a favorite, but wrong, claim of anti-vaccine activists that Dr. Offit is "pharma-funded." It takes a commercial manufacturer to bring a vaccine to market, but he works for a children's hospital.
Another source of interest may be this recent paper by Anna Kirkland (sorry, can't embed link):http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/early/2011/10/13/03616878-1496020.full.pdf .
posted by lakeroon at 5:37 AM on March 20, 2012
Another source of interest may be this recent paper by Anna Kirkland (sorry, can't embed link):http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/early/2011/10/13/03616878-1496020.full.pdf .
posted by lakeroon at 5:37 AM on March 20, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
The scientific justifications, public health implications, and actual risks (as opposed to the imagined ones) are quite varied between the shots. While the various fears, both real and ridiculous, are also pretty diverse and independent.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:35 PM on March 18, 2012