3 ms·

There is a large group of people starting to frame this a "personal freedom' issue. Some people in my circle are family members, or old classmates, etc. Some v

There is a large group of people starting to frame this a "personal freedom' issue. Some people in my circle are family members, or old classmates, etc. Some view it as a moral issue, because they are afraid of what 'the state' might mandate as a vaccine. (and what might get added in the future. For example, a few of them are VERY opposed to gaurdasil, since in their minds (not mine) that helps promote promiscuity, and the downfall of good moral choices, etc. Overall, the people that I know that are opposed are all successful, in industries without strong education requirements (ie, realestate, the trades, etc) But have a VERY strong distrust of government, and the medical industry. They frame it as a personal 'freedom' but really, they seem to be worried that the corrupt state will push barely tested shots on our kids, that will cause who knows what. I don't agree with them, but I figured I would state their points, because just calling them idiots doesn't solve the problem

BeetleB 8y ago
>For example, a few of them are VERY opposed to gaurdasil, since in their minds (not mine) that helps promote promiscuity, and the downfall of good moral choices, etc. Not disagreeing with the message of your comment, but I would be quite careful with relating what happened regarding Gardasil. While a lot of people opposed it on promiscuity grounds, there were many other reasons people opposed it, and they tend all to erroneously get lumped into the same category. Probably the most common reason was that the manufacturer was very strongly pushing to make it a mandatory vaccine for school, and was charging a huge amount for it. The cost at the time was a lot more expensive (order of magnitude) compared to other mandatory vaccines. So people felt it was mostly a money grab by the manufacturer. Additionally, at the time there were studies suggesting that were it to become mandatory, it would be a net negative for the overall health of society - because it cost so much. Money would be diverted to this vaccine from treating other health issues. There were studies indicating that the cost of mass vaccination was significantly more than the cost of the disease (relatively rare in the US). (The years since have likely shown the studies to be inaccurate, but they were out there). On top of that, they put in a ton of money on marketing. They paid a large number of physicians to go on speaking tours about the benefits of Gardasil. These physicians were sometimes touted as experts, but most were just regular physicians who had no particular expertise on the matter. In that kind of environment, you can understand that people will not trust the motives of the company, and thus by proxy their claims on the effectiveness of the vaccine. The manner in which they pushed for that vaccine likely hurt the vaccine movement overall. (And on the side, I always suspected that the whole "promotion of promiscuity" argument was merely a strategy by those who don't believe in mass medication by the government - so they put out the morality propaganda to help their cause).

BeetleB 8y ago

>For example, a few of them are VERY opposed to gaurdasil, since in their minds (not mine) that helps promote promiscuity, and the downfall of good moral choices, etc. Not disagreeing with the message of your comment, but I would be quite careful with relating what happened regarding Gardasil. While a lot of people opposed it on promiscuity grounds, there were many other reasons people opposed it, and they tend all to erroneously get lumped into the same category. Probably the most common reason was that the manufacturer was very strongly pushing to make it a mandatory vaccine for school, and was charging a huge amount for it. The cost at the time was a lot more expensive (order of magnitude) compared to other mandatory vaccines. So people felt it was mostly a money grab by the manufacturer. Additionally, at the time there were studies suggesting that were it to become mandatory, it would be a net negative for the overall health of society - because it cost so much. Money would be diverted to this vaccine from treating other health issues. There were studies indicating that the cost of mass vaccination was significantly more than the cost of the disease (relatively rare in the US). (The years since have likely shown the studies to be inaccurate, but they were out there). On top of that, they put in a ton of money on marketing. They paid a large number of physicians to go on speaking tours about the benefits of Gardasil. These physicians were sometimes touted as experts, but most were just regular physicians who had no particular expertise on the matter. In that kind of environment, you can understand that people will not trust the motives of the company, and thus by proxy their claims on the effectiveness of the vaccine. The manner in which they pushed for that vaccine likely hurt the vaccine movement overall. (And on the side, I always suspected that the whole "promotion of promiscuity" argument was merely a strategy by those who don't believe in mass medication by the government - so they put out the morality propaganda to help their cause).