5 ms·

I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule i

I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.

RIMR 7y ago
Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack.
- generalpass 7y ago
  > Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack. Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?
  - ejstronge 7y ago
    > Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling? That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?
    - generalpass 7y ago
      > That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data? Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.
  - dtech 7y ago
    The burden on proof is on the one making claims against the scientific consensus. If they don't (they never do, or it never holds up), quack is 100% the right word.
    - lpah4all 7y ago
      But when the consensus is based upon for-profit goal-seeking corps that have engaged in successful regulatory capture, it is your duty to question it. Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers? I know the answer and I doubt you're willing to even entertain the truth much less accept it. But I'd love to be wrong about that. My wife's son is a doctor. He said he wouldn't go to 80% of his fellow med school graduates for care. Being good at memorizing does not make one a good doctor, even though it's essential.
      - ejstronge 7y ago
        > Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers? What are the differences in vaccination schedule that you're worried about? We need to be specific in these kinds of discussion. It may be true that there is no difference in vaccination schedules, but it may also be true that the countries you claim have different vaccination schedules are responding to local needs (vs. being worried about 'heavy' vaccination regimens).
        lpah4all 7y ago
        "We need to be specific..." JustFuckingGoogleIt.com
generalpass 7y ago
> I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. > For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician. It is not only "anti-liberal" to shout people down, but it is anti-science to ignore claims on findings and this is how I find the "anti-vaxxer" term to be used. I can't find the article right now, but I strongly encourage people to be more cautious about throwing the stupid terms around as some people are rather more nuanced. I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective. Again, I am not trying to support the claim, but simply labeling "anti-vaxxer" is not the way to address such claims and will attract an audience who will have no way to counter such claims because all opposition is engaged in schoolyard name-calling activities. EDIT: It is astounding to me that the commenters of, at least this article, are unable to distinguish my claim from claims of people discussed in the article.
- MiroF 7y ago
  > but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized Source? Regardless, the large majority of aggregate cases of measles in the United States are among people who aren't vaccinated, which is a massive, massive over-representation and suggests that the measles vaccine is effective, regardless of specific anomalous cases. I find this take of "being fair" to "nuanced" views quite common, but when I patiently let the whole anti-vax view be laid out, it is generally not particularly coherent nor well-sourced. I think stigma can be an effective way to change beliefs, because people can pretend they never held the belief in the first place. When you have someone lay out their whole argument, they often become more entrenched. My source: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
doikor 7y ago
> there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule Keyword here being believe. Their opinion is based on purely belief without any proof. All it does is give the kids their immunity later giving the pathogen a window to get them sick and spread the pathogen further
- lpah4all 7y ago
  It also increases profit. You trust those B-schoolers and their hand-picked goal-seeking researchers to shade toward safety or profit? I am pro-vax (within a sensible schedule) and anti-for-profit-corps, who NEVER EVER give a shit about your health, only that you can't prove that it was their product that harmed you.
  - doikor 7y ago
    And you trust one doctors opinion that causes you to spend more time in his clinic (make money).
    - lpah4all 7y ago
      Depends on the doctor, depends on the situation. I did, you should note, get told not to come back to a doctor's group -- after a single visit to establish a PCP -- for quote "asking too many questions". My wife was with me and was confused because I was in no way belligerent. And, for sure, that doctor was a piece of work. She just wanted to go through her checklist and be done with it, and her attitude showed.
yters 7y ago
It's strange to label anyone who disagrees with a position in this way. Sure, some disagreements are spurious, but is every single disagreement spurious? Is every single person in the group incapable of rationally coming to reasonable conclusions on their own, so must be dismissed as some crazy eyed person that has a fundamental inability to understand scientific data? I don't think such treatment is productive. A) It makes members of the group feel persecuted, which tends to not change anyone's mind B) Also benefits the pro-side by giving them a demon to slay However, neither A nor B will answer any real disagreements possessed by the targeted group, and will thus not eliminate those holding to the position on a rational basis. Instead, it'll just perpetuate A and B, leading to greater polarization. It may also grow the targeted group, since at least we Americans tend to have sympathy for the underdog position that appears unfairly persecuted.
joubert 7y ago
I read the article as calling out this one particular pediatrician. Reading his Wikipedia article makes me highly skeptical of his judgment, because it seems to be based on something other than data and science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sears_(physician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sears_(physician)
whenanother 7y ago
the purpose of combining so many vaccines in one dose or giving them all at the same time would help to make it harder to pinpoint problems. i am beginning to realize that conflation is a primary tool used to make it much harder to resolve issues. and the primary profit making scheme is to make as much money as possible before getting caught.
henriquez 7y ago
There is a really strong echo chamber effect among online communities that promotes blind trust in authority when it comes to some things (vaccines, gun control) while decrying authority in other cases (online privacy, facial recognition). I think a cornerstone of curious discussion should actually be understanding, rather than villainizing, viewpoints that lead a person to a cognitively dissonant state, but that is not what I observe, even among very well educated people. I think it's concerning to have thought leaders like Bill Gates spouting lines like "it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world."[1] Clearly high-risk sections of the population (health care workers, elderly, sick) should be prioritized, but to rush a vaccine across the entire population invites a lot of risks. For some groups, prioritizing drug treatment and improved healthcare practices might be better. Or perhaps not! -- but we should be able to have these discussions without being dismissed as insane conspiracy theorists. We all have confirmation bias, (perhaps I'd feel differently if I had experienced a COVID-19 infection) but I see articles like this as a preemptive dismissal of opposing viewpoints, an invocation of blind trust that potentially leads us to a dark place, particularly when combined with new mass surveillance vectors like app-based contact tracing. [1]: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-things-will-be-back-to-normal-by-june/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-thin...
- Tainnor 7y ago
  every expert I've seen talking about it agrees that we need to first vaccinate at-risk populations because there will be a shortage of vaccines. I'm not sure what kind of viewpoint vaccine skeptics add to this debate. also, tangentially, I think that blanket distrust of authorities is just as irrational as blanket trust. it should really depend on the situation which is why it's by no means cognitive dissonance to trust authorities in some respects but not in others.
  - henriquez 7y ago
    Trusting authority in some cases and not others is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance comes from encountering something that goes against your confirmation bias, and runs the risk of knee jerk reactions. Example of knee jerk reaction: the GP's example of the article (and possibly you) conflating a doctor who says "maybe we should slow down" with anti-vaxxers.

RIMR 7y ago

Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack.

generalpass 7y ago
> Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack. Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?
- ejstronge 7y ago
  > Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling? That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?
  - generalpass 7y ago
    > That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data? Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.
- dtech 7y ago
  The burden on proof is on the one making claims against the scientific consensus. If they don't (they never do, or it never holds up), quack is 100% the right word.
  - lpah4all 7y ago
    But when the consensus is based upon for-profit goal-seeking corps that have engaged in successful regulatory capture, it is your duty to question it. Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers? I know the answer and I doubt you're willing to even entertain the truth much less accept it. But I'd love to be wrong about that. My wife's son is a doctor. He said he wouldn't go to 80% of his fellow med school graduates for care. Being good at memorizing does not make one a good doctor, even though it's essential.
    - ejstronge 7y ago
      > Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers? What are the differences in vaccination schedule that you're worried about? We need to be specific in these kinds of discussion. It may be true that there is no difference in vaccination schedules, but it may also be true that the countries you claim have different vaccination schedules are responding to local needs (vs. being worried about 'heavy' vaccination regimens).
      - lpah4all 7y ago
        "We need to be specific..." JustFuckingGoogleIt.com

generalpass 7y ago

> I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. > For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician. It is not only "anti-liberal" to shout people down, but it is anti-science to ignore claims on findings and this is how I find the "anti-vaxxer" term to be used. I can't find the article right now, but I strongly encourage people to be more cautious about throwing the stupid terms around as some people are rather more nuanced. I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective. Again, I am not trying to support the claim, but simply labeling "anti-vaxxer" is not the way to address such claims and will attract an audience who will have no way to counter such claims because all opposition is engaged in schoolyard name-calling activities. EDIT: It is astounding to me that the commenters of, at least this article, are unable to distinguish my claim from claims of people discussed in the article.

MiroF 7y ago
> but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized Source? Regardless, the large majority of aggregate cases of measles in the United States are among people who aren't vaccinated, which is a massive, massive over-representation and suggests that the measles vaccine is effective, regardless of specific anomalous cases. I find this take of "being fair" to "nuanced" views quite common, but when I patiently let the whole anti-vax view be laid out, it is generally not particularly coherent nor well-sourced. I think stigma can be an effective way to change beliefs, because people can pretend they never held the belief in the first place. When you have someone lay out their whole argument, they often become more entrenched. My source: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
- CydeWeys 7y ago

doikor 7y ago

> there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule Keyword here being believe. Their opinion is based on purely belief without any proof. All it does is give the kids their immunity later giving the pathogen a window to get them sick and spread the pathogen further

lpah4all 7y ago
It also increases profit. You trust those B-schoolers and their hand-picked goal-seeking researchers to shade toward safety or profit? I am pro-vax (within a sensible schedule) and anti-for-profit-corps, who NEVER EVER give a shit about your health, only that you can't prove that it was their product that harmed you.
- doikor 7y ago
  And you trust one doctors opinion that causes you to spend more time in his clinic (make money).
  - lpah4all 7y ago
    Depends on the doctor, depends on the situation. I did, you should note, get told not to come back to a doctor's group -- after a single visit to establish a PCP -- for quote "asking too many questions". My wife was with me and was confused because I was in no way belligerent. And, for sure, that doctor was a piece of work. She just wanted to go through her checklist and be done with it, and her attitude showed.

yters 7y ago

It's strange to label anyone who disagrees with a position in this way. Sure, some disagreements are spurious, but is every single disagreement spurious? Is every single person in the group incapable of rationally coming to reasonable conclusions on their own, so must be dismissed as some crazy eyed person that has a fundamental inability to understand scientific data? I don't think such treatment is productive. A) It makes members of the group feel persecuted, which tends to not change anyone's mind B) Also benefits the pro-side by giving them a demon to slay However, neither A nor B will answer any real disagreements possessed by the targeted group, and will thus not eliminate those holding to the position on a rational basis. Instead, it'll just perpetuate A and B, leading to greater polarization. It may also grow the targeted group, since at least we Americans tend to have sympathy for the underdog position that appears unfairly persecuted.

joubert 7y ago

I read the article as calling out this one particular pediatrician. Reading his Wikipedia article makes me highly skeptical of his judgment, because it seems to be based on something other than data and science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sears_(physician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sears_(physician)

whenanother 7y ago

the purpose of combining so many vaccines in one dose or giving them all at the same time would help to make it harder to pinpoint problems. i am beginning to realize that conflation is a primary tool used to make it much harder to resolve issues. and the primary profit making scheme is to make as much money as possible before getting caught.

henriquez 7y ago

There is a really strong echo chamber effect among online communities that promotes blind trust in authority when it comes to some things (vaccines, gun control) while decrying authority in other cases (online privacy, facial recognition). I think a cornerstone of curious discussion should actually be understanding, rather than villainizing, viewpoints that lead a person to a cognitively dissonant state, but that is not what I observe, even among very well educated people. I think it's concerning to have thought leaders like Bill Gates spouting lines like "it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world."[1] Clearly high-risk sections of the population (health care workers, elderly, sick) should be prioritized, but to rush a vaccine across the entire population invites a lot of risks. For some groups, prioritizing drug treatment and improved healthcare practices might be better. Or perhaps not! -- but we should be able to have these discussions without being dismissed as insane conspiracy theorists. We all have confirmation bias, (perhaps I'd feel differently if I had experienced a COVID-19 infection) but I see articles like this as a preemptive dismissal of opposing viewpoints, an invocation of blind trust that potentially leads us to a dark place, particularly when combined with new mass surveillance vectors like app-based contact tracing. [1]: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-things-will-be-back-to-normal-by-june/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-thin...

Tainnor 7y ago
every expert I've seen talking about it agrees that we need to first vaccinate at-risk populations because there will be a shortage of vaccines. I'm not sure what kind of viewpoint vaccine skeptics add to this debate. also, tangentially, I think that blanket distrust of authorities is just as irrational as blanket trust. it should really depend on the situation which is why it's by no means cognitive dissonance to trust authorities in some respects but not in others.
- henriquez 7y ago
  Trusting authority in some cases and not others is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance comes from encountering something that goes against your confirmation bias, and runs the risk of knee jerk reactions. Example of knee jerk reaction: the GP's example of the article (and possibly you) conflating a doctor who says "maybe we should slow down" with anti-vaxxers.