8 ms·

Reading the article, the community backed off from vaccination following two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine. It wasn't "personal choice" or "reli

Reading the article, the community backed off from vaccination following two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine. It wasn't "personal choice" or "religious exception." They had a bad experience and were scared away.

mikeash 12y ago
Two kids allegedly getting sick after receiving an MMR vaccine. I don't know if those terms are justified, but if they are then that's rather different from "two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine." One thing we need to educate people about is that just because you get sick after getting a shot doesn't mean the shot caused you to get sick, and that even if it is, an occasional bad reaction is worth it if the rate is sufficiently low and the consequences sufficiently mild.
13years 12y ago
I think you point out the problem of dialog. It is assumed anti-vaxers are anti-science, religious, uneducated or anti-gov. Although this may apply to some, it doesn't explain the majority and the rapid growth. There is no shortage of educated doctors, former employees of drug companies, and data from CDC etc that is used for the anti vax argument. To convince someone of a point, one needs to not start from the position the other person has any of these stereotype labels. You need to start from educating yourself of their opposing argument and realize it is supported by real data. Then the discussion becomes more appropriate around the validity of data, its interpretation etc.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I've never seen an anti-vax argument that was supported by real data. What I have seen are things like: 1. They cause autism. 2. They contain nasty, toxic chemicals. 3. They are unnecessary. 4. They are unsafe (in some unspecified way) and are just pushed for profit by big pharma. The only one that comes even close to being supported by data is #1, and that's completely fake data.
  - 13years 12y ago
    So, you mean you have never seen an argument with data? or you didn't believe the data was real? I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evidence they have acquired in short posts. You post all of these are false, yet you post no data either. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you are reading blogs and message posts they don't often come with evidence. One of the key criteria for effective debating is to first attempt to convince yourself of the opponents argument by researching it from their perspective. Actually seek out the evidence to prove their point. What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie. Bottom line, if you can appear more knowledgeable of their perspective, they are more likely to listen to what you have to say.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is bad in all circumstances and you'd be mad to put it in your children. The fundamental problem is that people don't know how to think. They don't know how to differentiate between "this vaccine contains small amounts of aluminum which is harmless for the following reasons" and "this vaccine contains aluminum, which is known to cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease." Maybe I do need to appear more knowledgeable of their views to be convincing. But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not.
      - 13years 12y ago
        "But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always ignorant, uneducated or just following Jenny McCarthy etc. You will find plenty of doctors, neurosurgeons etc that also have issues with vaccines. Dr. Wakefield became famous for the autism issue; however, you should be aware that since then there are many educated doctors that find some issue with vaccines. Of course being a doctor doesn’t make you automatically correct, it is just once again being aware that the person you are debating may have what appears to be credible information. It would be best to ask where the person is coming from in a non hostile way. Just ask, so what have you discovered and what led you to your decisions for example. That is friendly and opens up conversation. From then you can discern if this person made decisions based on credible sources ( but maybe not accurate ) or they have not actually educated themselves. When I say credible sources, I mean to say at least they are referencing other doctors, scientists, studies vs some blog. Credible in this instance doesn't necessarily mean correct or wrong, but acknowledging they did their research will allow conversation to continue. Then you can share counter research etc as conversation progresses. Just be aware, within the scientific community, these topic still are being researched and it is not as if they are completely closed. For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. Being aware of such is always a plus when having such discussions as you will appear to at least know something about where they are coming from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
TheHypnotist 12y ago
I got pretty sick after getting MMR vax. But I think that's normal when you get dead/dying diseases injected into your body. Also, on the bright side, I haven't gotten Measles, Mumps, OR Rubella yet.

mikeash 12y ago

Two kids allegedly getting sick after receiving an MMR vaccine. I don't know if those terms are justified, but if they are then that's rather different from "two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine." One thing we need to educate people about is that just because you get sick after getting a shot doesn't mean the shot caused you to get sick, and that even if it is, an occasional bad reaction is worth it if the rate is sufficiently low and the consequences sufficiently mild.

13years 12y ago

I think you point out the problem of dialog. It is assumed anti-vaxers are anti-science, religious, uneducated or anti-gov. Although this may apply to some, it doesn't explain the majority and the rapid growth. There is no shortage of educated doctors, former employees of drug companies, and data from CDC etc that is used for the anti vax argument. To convince someone of a point, one needs to not start from the position the other person has any of these stereotype labels. You need to start from educating yourself of their opposing argument and realize it is supported by real data. Then the discussion becomes more appropriate around the validity of data, its interpretation etc.

mikeash 12y ago
I've never seen an anti-vax argument that was supported by real data. What I have seen are things like: 1. They cause autism. 2. They contain nasty, toxic chemicals. 3. They are unnecessary. 4. They are unsafe (in some unspecified way) and are just pushed for profit by big pharma. The only one that comes even close to being supported by data is #1, and that's completely fake data.
- 13years 12y ago
  So, you mean you have never seen an argument with data? or you didn't believe the data was real? I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evidence they have acquired in short posts. You post all of these are false, yet you post no data either. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you are reading blogs and message posts they don't often come with evidence. One of the key criteria for effective debating is to first attempt to convince yourself of the opponents argument by researching it from their perspective. Actually seek out the evidence to prove their point. What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie. Bottom line, if you can appear more knowledgeable of their perspective, they are more likely to listen to what you have to say.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is bad in all circumstances and you'd be mad to put it in your children. The fundamental problem is that people don't know how to think. They don't know how to differentiate between "this vaccine contains small amounts of aluminum which is harmless for the following reasons" and "this vaccine contains aluminum, which is known to cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease." Maybe I do need to appear more knowledgeable of their views to be convincing. But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not.
    - 13years 12y ago
      "But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always ignorant, uneducated or just following Jenny McCarthy etc. You will find plenty of doctors, neurosurgeons etc that also have issues with vaccines. Dr. Wakefield became famous for the autism issue; however, you should be aware that since then there are many educated doctors that find some issue with vaccines. Of course being a doctor doesn’t make you automatically correct, it is just once again being aware that the person you are debating may have what appears to be credible information. It would be best to ask where the person is coming from in a non hostile way. Just ask, so what have you discovered and what led you to your decisions for example. That is friendly and opens up conversation. From then you can discern if this person made decisions based on credible sources ( but maybe not accurate ) or they have not actually educated themselves. When I say credible sources, I mean to say at least they are referencing other doctors, scientists, studies vs some blog. Credible in this instance doesn't necessarily mean correct or wrong, but acknowledging they did their research will allow conversation to continue. Then you can share counter research etc as conversation progresses. Just be aware, within the scientific community, these topic still are being researched and it is not as if they are completely closed. For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. Being aware of such is always a plus when having such discussions as you will appear to at least know something about where they are coming from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277

TheHypnotist 12y ago

I got pretty sick after getting MMR vax. But I think that's normal when you get dead/dying diseases injected into your body. Also, on the bright side, I haven't gotten Measles, Mumps, OR Rubella yet.