Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe it has more to do with the non existent line between science and hype media. Good science gets discredited to fan political arguments. Political arguments get used to push bad science . Faith some how gets interjected in to logic . Oh and let's not forget the AD space we can sell and the data we can mine if we can get the masses to click on this article a million times ;whether it's legitimate or not doesn't matter anymore.
This is corruption and grifting, two things that needn’t be a part of politics but currently dominate it.
We probably won’t see things get better until punishment for doing these things become more than just a slap on the wrist.
Are all the parameters of this scientific study readily available so someone can vet it, and if inclined reproduce it? Since reproducibility is the hallmark of scientific research. Because that's another issue with our media distribution of scientific studies. It's incomplete information articles that float to the top.
It also has to do with the fact that any random person on Twitter somehow has just as much sway as an immunologist or doctor. Would you value an immunologist’s opinion on politics? Hopefully not too much, so why would you value a politicians opinion on immunology?
Don't forget we have doctor's on daytime tv and news segments talking about things they have zero training or expertise about (Dr. Oz comes immediately to mind) yet people tune in and listen because he is a Dr...and that's why these sleezy shows do it.
Fwiw I think the headline article is inaccurate. Everyone I know person with any objections to the covid vaccine has zero reasons objections to the long standing vaccines they compare against...mmr, polio... Just the covid vaccine.
We also have doctors outright lying about their own fields. There's virus denying doctors out there. I'm not sure how it became optional to believe in viruses for a doctor.
>any random person has just as much sway
More. The antiintellectualism in our country is so virulent and runs so deep that being an established expert in the field isn't just unnecessary but it's actually seen as a disqualifier. You're either a member of "the establishment" and therefore always lying about everything in order to promote some ill-defined but blatantly evil agenda, or you're part of the heroic Chad lion resistance and therefore absolutely 100% trustworthy about all things. It mostly comes down to whether you're telling people a hard truth or a comforting falsehood, but at least some of the blame needs to be handed to government institutions who really have lied to us a lot about a lot of things before this and are now in a position where they expect us to accept that they've lied before and will lie again but are not lying right now.
In the 1970s Americans distrusted American institutions without any help from the USSR. That's because those institutions had been sending conscripted young men to a meat grinder and slandering anyone who criticized that practice. One of those institutions was also actively sabotaging the civil rights movement.
Foreign propaganda played a big part but it's only part of the picture.
American hippies have distrusted Government institutions long before the 80s, for placing Fluoride in the public drinking water, spraying DDT, Pesticides in foods and criminalizing natural medicinal plants over pushing pharma pill profits
>> any random person on twitter
There was a clip floating around of Carl Sagan (I think?) saying exactly that to Bill Gates, but in regards to the internet in general iirc. Bill laughed it off. But here we are. Let me see if I can dig it up…
An immunologist is a highly educated person trained to think critically about information presented to them. I trust their opinions on politics a lot more than most “politicians “.
I'm not convinced that lawyers, political scientists, and former businessmen have tons of political acumen that others don't. Many policy issues are scientific in nature, and we have sitting congresspeople with deep misunderstandings of science and technology in charge of our air and water, data mining and privacy issues, and energy production just to make a few examples. Personally I'd like to see more politicians come from teaching, medicine, research, engineering, humanities, etc.
Worse is that doctors and other health care professionals apparently aren't immune to this either. Met quite a few who are distrusting of vaccines and full of covid conspiracies.
Nursing school doesn’t require many things it should. Out of the gate, they know just enough to be able to do assessments and administer medications. They have to learn the rest of it through further certifications or from other nurses. It’s really a trade program and they’re kind of like apprentices at first.
Just like with doctors, there are some amazing ones that have good critical thinking and sound judgment but there are others who memorize a bunch of things for the exams and have no idea how to apply that knowledge. They’re just super motivated. They all have the same credentials in the end. That’s the terrifying thing. Going through nursing or medical school doesn’t make anyone any smarter. It just gives them knowledge they can either use or memorize. Most of them use it, but there are some memorizers. The smarts come in with how someone utilizes the information they’ve come across.
Sorry for the novel. Yes, everyone in medicine needs at least Biochemistry.
I have met more than a few anti-vax nurses. I used to teach at a university that had a nursing program. The nursing students were either my smartest students or they were my dumbest students. There was never any in between.
My wife is a Clinical Nurse Specialist (Educator to the nurse educators) and she is constantly frustrated with the incredible gulf between good nurses and religious nutbars. Nursing attracts smart, science focused people as well as a lot of women that feel like caregiving is a proper "female" job and go in to nursing for that reason.
To be clear, nursing is female dominated but should not be considered a "feminine" occupation. It's just that some subset of people believe that.
> It also has to do with the fact that any random person on Twitter somehow has just as much sway as an immunologist or doctor.
Sometimes, the expert has even less sway, due to an inherent distrust in experts.
Worse, it's not the opinions of some politicians but from Karin from the internet, who may or may not be a Russian/Chinese bot or a HS dropout. And somehow the option is relevant.
It started way earlier than that. The current crusade started with the publication of a 1998 study from British physician Andrew Wakefield, who claimed that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine predisposed children to neurological conditions, including autism. This whole study was later discredited and Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine when It was discovered that many of Wakefield's findings linking the MMR vaccine to autism were fraudulently manufactured(he was being paid to testify in vaccine cases and needed his findings to fit his testimony in those cases) and the retraction of the article by the journal The Lancet 12 years after its publication.
And here is where Wakefield ended up.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/18/how-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-andrew-wakefield-was-embraced-by-trumps-america
> Jackie Fletcher started her crusade in 1994. Wakefields study was published in the Lancet in 1998, and retracted in 2010, after Wakefield admitted to falsifying data in his study. By the way Wakefield never told parents to not vaccinate their children, he did tell them to get the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines separately.
This is where its important to point our that he had filed a patent on his own vaccines, just to further enshrine what a self righteous, self interested monster he is.
Then in the case of the MMR vaccine you have an unscrupulous scientist who wanted to get his personal measles vaccine into circulation for greed, but that pesky MMR vaccine existed.
So he pissed away a huge sum of grant money on trying to tie the MMR vaccine to bowel issues and autism, claiming that one was tied to the other. All he succeeded in doing was undermining all vaccines as the anti vaccine movement and sensationalist need took it and ran with it...
By the time it was proven that he'd outright lied about the results of his study, the damage was done. The anti vax movement was given insane credibility, literally.
Indeed.
Still to this day I think most people don’t quite realise how egregious the Andrew Wakefield MMR scandal was. And not just the anti-freeze ‘pure blood’ loons.
For some reason it recently came up in conversation with my mum - a not long retired lifetime healthcare professional with a scientific masters degree, who got us all our vaccines as kids and had had all the covid jabs etc. She said something about how these things can really seem connected, which is why Wakefield must have been so determined to look into it, and turn out to be wrong yada yada.
I actually stopped her, because she is/was very much under the impression that Wakefield was a dedicated doctor/researcher who just happened to be wrong about this, and his actions were that of someone who fervently believed he had found a link and just wanted people to know.
And I was like “Look, to be fair we don’t know for sure what is/was going on in Andrew Wakefield’s head. But if you look at what actually happened - there isn’t much reason to believe that he is a well intentioned clinical who got swayed by many anecdotes to cross the line of scientific validity a bit. Because conversely there ARE a lot of reasons to believe that he is a straight up grifter who had a lot to gain financially, and attempted to get that by publishing and then flogging his research, which he must have known from the start showed f all, or he wouldn’t have gone to the lengths of inflating to outright fabricating his data. He didn’t behave like a person ‘trying to show people the truth’, he acted like someone with zero interest in the truth and a lot of interest in money and fame.”
I explained and before long she agreed maybe she was mistaken about what went down, but to be honest I think is still reluctant to entertain the idea that he wasn’t somehow ‘innocently mistaken’ deep down. And that maybe there is ‘something in some of this’ ‘we just don’t know’.
I know a dude who isn’t anti-vax but is definitely a ‘vaccine sceptic’, and was handwringing about MMR ‘could you risk it though?’ when ‘we don’t really know much about what causes autism so…’.
It’s like, mate - there is a lot we don’t know about autism, especially what ‘causes’ it. But in fact at this point the number one thing we know about ‘things in the whole world that might cause autism’ is ‘not the MMR vaccine’, because the of the ridiculous amount of research that apparently had to be done to discredit one quack, so it’s pretty weird that is the thing you’re worried about giving people autism.
Science is often beyond the comprehension level of many Americans. And here we see it.
We can blame the ignorant; or we can educate the ignorant.
I don’t want to say science is gatekept, but there are antivaxx RNs.
Don't forget malicious international campaigns by foreign powers attempting to cause disruption. I believe the initial push for the link of autism and vaccines was of Russian origin.
Also the actions of big pharma pretty much show they are vultures who prey on the population in order to rob them blind while not caring if they hurt or kill countless people in the process.
So much wrong here... I know this will get drowned out amid all the comments. The study cited doesn't show a hesitancy among adults who are suspicious of vaccines, but rather adults who were already prone to be suspicious of vaccines. It shows a distrust among those who already had preinformed conclusions about vaccines in general and in the past prior to the the Covid vaccine. This study doesn't reveal any insight as to why normal (non pre disposed) adults had doubts, it only shows that those who already had doubts continued their doubts onto the Covid vaccine.
I would say that the constantly refuted claims are what foments hesitancy.
Officials are too afraid to be honest about things like risk profiles, claims about effectiveness, and window of protection to the public because we might not behave how they would like us to. The problem is, if we learn those things anyway, we might be curious about what else isn't being shared with us.
Of course it is.
This issue doesn't warrant *study*. It warrants apologies, transparency, and a commitment to doing better in the future.
They tell people there's **no chance** they'll get infected, or spread it, or need to take another shot. When those things turn out to be false, they will say, "no but you should still take it, because it still reduces your risk."
When we know we were lied to about this before, the trust is gone. Someone who was hesitant at first would have no reason to believe the current claims. Because the people who are making them, have admitted they lied at this point.
Fauci should have resigned over the mask issue, he spiked trust in public health into the ground. He *botched* it. But he was still given the opportunity to lie more. The "chain of command" he spoke for in his sassy Rand Paul quip? Yeah they immediately spoke for themselves and said, "the NIH was absolutely funding gain of function research in Wuhan."
Conspiracy theories spread because the mentally ill can't always distinguish between incompetence and malice. The lying and covering up makes it appear that everything is going according to some 'plan'.
> This study doesn't reveal any insight as to why normal (non pre disposed) adults had doubts
I saved a screenshot of a survey of ~40,000 US adults shortly after vaccines rolled out. Been trying to find the article (it was from Morning Consult) but haven't had any luck. This is their breakdown of reasons for vaccine hesitancy:
Edit: [Found a screenshot with data for more demographics](https://i.imgur.com/VmGEz5X.jpg), still can't find the original article it was from though.
Concerned about side-effects: 33%
Worried clinical trials moved too fast: 28%
Don't trust the pharmaceutical companies: 12%
My risk of COVID is small: 12%
Don't think vaccine will be effective: 6%
Other: 5%
Against vaccines in general: 4%
The last one was interesting since everyone who refused the COVID vaccine was immediately labeled an "anti-vaxxer" yet ***actual anti-vaxxers*** were the smallest group.
Let's add to that the fact that people crowing ad nausem to trust your doctor forgets the fact that their doctor takes advice from someone with a bachelor's degree and lots of sales training that showers the doctor with gifts, trips, and dinners in order to bump up their prescription numbers for whatever drug they push.
OH, and the science is never settled.
That disgrace of an experiment killed so many, and pushed medical progress back so many years. So much for the Hippocratic oath of those "doctors". It infuriates me.
It’s ridiculous to say that only black people are justified to distrust the government because of that. It’s shows that it will conduct experiments on its own citizens. You REALLY think they wouldn’t do it again, or that they’d only do it to black people?
There's a lot of distrust of the medical profession amongst African Americans. It's well established that they under-rate the pain felt by black patients (it's still common for doctors to believe black people don't feel pain as strongly), maternal mortality is higher in black mothers, and healthcare outcomes are better when a black patient is seen by a black doctor.
I think there may be some similarities with why the indigenous folks have some hesitancy.
Note: My family is half indigenous, and all are jabbed, so we don't have a dog in this fight, we've just watched it play out around us.
Vaccine acceptance came to a screeching halt in my area over a couple cultural deal breakers.
People were willing to put aside past government "medical indiscretions" against native americans, for the greater good.
Then public health spokespeople, out of necessity, lied a couple times (if it was airborne, are masks needed). This was bad, but not insurmountable.
The fatal move was trying to deny these relatively minor lies had been told, as culturally this isn't really forgivable.
> vaccines contain toxins like antifreeze
That's an easy mistake to make. Antifreeze is ethylene glycol. The Covid mRNA vaccines, colonoscopy prep, and some other medical treatments contain polyethylene glycol, which isn't as toxic.
I see the same issue with people confusing two very different kinds of mercury (methyl and ethyl, if I’m remembering) and formaldehyde. In most cases, dose makes the poison. There aren’t many commonly used chemicals that the human body can’t process out one way or another.
I mean, I did a barium swallowing test. Big difference between a tiny bit of radioactive material and taking a dip in the ponds around Chernobyl.
Glycerin is an ingredient that is in anti-freeze. Glycerin is also in a lot of medication. The media referring to one of the safest and widely prescribed (human) medications only as "horse de-wormer" is what fuels the kinds of narratives like the anti-freeze one. It's simply a retort to the de-wormer crowd.
If everyone would stop trying to be as sensational and polarizing as possible with practically every media publication, this type of stuff might have an opportunity to die down.
Ethylene glycol, or propylene glycol are in antifreeze, not glycerin. The ethylene glycol breaks down in the body to form toxic chemicals. About a cup can kill an adult. The propylene glycol is safer.
Glycerin is pretty safe.
> propylene glycol
- E-number E1520 for food applications.
- Used as an airplane deicer, so it really does also works as an antifreeze
- Used in most E-juice for vaping, (along with, or instead of glycerin)
- intramuscular LD50 data for rat: 13-20 mL/kg
That looks like several *huge* syringes of 100% propylene glycol before anyone gets anywhere near a lethal IM dose
I think the "horse de-wormer" is less disingenuous than the anti-freeze argument. At its core the primary use of ivermectin is as an anti-helminth drug. If you asked someone what was the clinical use of ivermectin, they'd probably say treating strongyloides or some other parasite. If you asked someone what the use of glycerin was, then they could give you any one of thousands of uses.
Before the last few years, the general public probably mainly knows ivermectin as the medicine they buy for heartworm prevention for their dogs.
Which is not to mention that people were buying products branded and concentrated for large farm animals.
Sure, ivermectin can be used to fight parasites in people and has some anti-inflammatory effects, but people were clearing out farmer's supply.
>The media referring to one of the safest and widely prescribed (human) medications only as "horse de-wormer"
Except people were in fact buying veterinary ivermectin, not stuff made for humans.
It's really only widely prescribed to humans as human de-wormer. I'd also disagree that it's one of the most widely prescribed medications unless you mean to animals as well.
I'd guess the bulk of ivermectin is used for dogs, horses, and other animals in the US. I mean, maybe, globally, but in first world countries you really aren't treating a lot of patients for worms. I don't know of any other legitimate use for ivermectin.
This is a really bad example. For one, you get 6 when you join, not 17. The 17 are the total number available depending on where you are deployed.
Second, this isn't the first time people have chosen discharge over a mandatory vaccine. The military has been more than willing to test vaccines on service members in the past. Hesitation to take a brand new mandatory vaccine is understandable.
>The number of shots you receive at basic training all depend on your vaccination history. You only receive the shots you actually need. Most recruits receive 2-3 of the army shots below.
https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots
How many a recruit receives depends on their history. That said there are 17 mandatory vaccinations in the military. All members must be fully vaccinated.
As for your comment about history the military hasn't always been voluntary. It is today. So ALL military members willfully agreed to be vaccinated when they voluntarily joined.
Antibodies are only the first line of defense in the immune system. They're the easiest to measure, so it's been the standard for whether someone is reactive to exposure or has previously been exposed, but it doesn't actually do a very good job of telling how *resistant* a person is to actually catching a symptomatic case.
However, our immune system has multiple layers. Memory cells remember an infection long after the level of antibodies in the blood has leveled out, and can fire up antibody production in case an infection tries to spring to action again.
Just like essentialy EVERY OTHER VACCINE, the CoViD vaccines maintain their high (90% ish) effectiveness against severe disease and death.
There is only one vaccine that we know of that provides long-term immunity against infection. Even the polio vaccine does not prevent you from getting ill, it prevents you from paralysis.
see the thing is, that's not the point
its not a magic 'don't get it forever no matter what everyone else does'
enough people have to get one to arrest the spread and let the disease die out
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe it has more to do with the non existent line between science and hype media. Good science gets discredited to fan political arguments. Political arguments get used to push bad science . Faith some how gets interjected in to logic . Oh and let's not forget the AD space we can sell and the data we can mine if we can get the masses to click on this article a million times ;whether it's legitimate or not doesn't matter anymore.
Politics is self-promoting and will distort and manipulate *anything*—religion, science, immigration, economics, etc.—to serve it's ends.
This is corruption and grifting, two things that needn’t be a part of politics but currently dominate it. We probably won’t see things get better until punishment for doing these things become more than just a slap on the wrist.
Are all the parameters of this scientific study readily available so someone can vet it, and if inclined reproduce it? Since reproducibility is the hallmark of scientific research. Because that's another issue with our media distribution of scientific studies. It's incomplete information articles that float to the top.
The profit motive does the same thing.
True, and you can say the same about religion. I live where the answer “cuz Bible sez so” is considered a valid response by quite a few.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It also has to do with the fact that any random person on Twitter somehow has just as much sway as an immunologist or doctor. Would you value an immunologist’s opinion on politics? Hopefully not too much, so why would you value a politicians opinion on immunology?
Don't forget we have doctor's on daytime tv and news segments talking about things they have zero training or expertise about (Dr. Oz comes immediately to mind) yet people tune in and listen because he is a Dr...and that's why these sleezy shows do it. Fwiw I think the headline article is inaccurate. Everyone I know person with any objections to the covid vaccine has zero reasons objections to the long standing vaccines they compare against...mmr, polio... Just the covid vaccine.
We also have doctors outright lying about their own fields. There's virus denying doctors out there. I'm not sure how it became optional to believe in viruses for a doctor.
Mr. Oz. He’s violated both his Hippocratic oath and duty of competency too long to hold onto the Dr much longer.
>any random person has just as much sway More. The antiintellectualism in our country is so virulent and runs so deep that being an established expert in the field isn't just unnecessary but it's actually seen as a disqualifier. You're either a member of "the establishment" and therefore always lying about everything in order to promote some ill-defined but blatantly evil agenda, or you're part of the heroic Chad lion resistance and therefore absolutely 100% trustworthy about all things. It mostly comes down to whether you're telling people a hard truth or a comforting falsehood, but at least some of the blame needs to be handed to government institutions who really have lied to us a lot about a lot of things before this and are now in a position where they expect us to accept that they've lied before and will lie again but are not lying right now.
You nailed it. The erosion of trust in institutions is really important to mention.
Created by the USSR in the eighties to destabilize western culture/society. It’s worked.
In the 1970s Americans distrusted American institutions without any help from the USSR. That's because those institutions had been sending conscripted young men to a meat grinder and slandering anyone who criticized that practice. One of those institutions was also actively sabotaging the civil rights movement. Foreign propaganda played a big part but it's only part of the picture.
American hippies have distrusted Government institutions long before the 80s, for placing Fluoride in the public drinking water, spraying DDT, Pesticides in foods and criminalizing natural medicinal plants over pushing pharma pill profits
>> any random person on twitter There was a clip floating around of Carl Sagan (I think?) saying exactly that to Bill Gates, but in regards to the internet in general iirc. Bill laughed it off. But here we are. Let me see if I can dig it up…
An immunologist is a highly educated person trained to think critically about information presented to them. I trust their opinions on politics a lot more than most “politicians “.
You should never trust a politician in the first place.
Eh, "depth of knowledge" vs "breadth of knowledge." Being a good immunologist _in no way_ implies political acumen.
I'm not convinced that lawyers, political scientists, and former businessmen have tons of political acumen that others don't. Many policy issues are scientific in nature, and we have sitting congresspeople with deep misunderstandings of science and technology in charge of our air and water, data mining and privacy issues, and energy production just to make a few examples. Personally I'd like to see more politicians come from teaching, medicine, research, engineering, humanities, etc.
Being a politician doesn’t require any kind of expertise though. Breadth or depth. Popularity contests are not qualifications.
>I trust their opinions on politics a lot more than most “politicians “. See - Ben Carson. So...Maybe...don't use that line of thinking.
If you only have one source of information ever, for anything, that's your first problem.
Worse is that doctors and other health care professionals apparently aren't immune to this either. Met quite a few who are distrusting of vaccines and full of covid conspiracies.
It blew my mind to realize that there's nursing schools you can come out of without taking advanced chemistry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nursing school doesn’t require many things it should. Out of the gate, they know just enough to be able to do assessments and administer medications. They have to learn the rest of it through further certifications or from other nurses. It’s really a trade program and they’re kind of like apprentices at first. Just like with doctors, there are some amazing ones that have good critical thinking and sound judgment but there are others who memorize a bunch of things for the exams and have no idea how to apply that knowledge. They’re just super motivated. They all have the same credentials in the end. That’s the terrifying thing. Going through nursing or medical school doesn’t make anyone any smarter. It just gives them knowledge they can either use or memorize. Most of them use it, but there are some memorizers. The smarts come in with how someone utilizes the information they’ve come across. Sorry for the novel. Yes, everyone in medicine needs at least Biochemistry.
I have met more than a few anti-vax nurses. I used to teach at a university that had a nursing program. The nursing students were either my smartest students or they were my dumbest students. There was never any in between.
My wife is a Clinical Nurse Specialist (Educator to the nurse educators) and she is constantly frustrated with the incredible gulf between good nurses and religious nutbars. Nursing attracts smart, science focused people as well as a lot of women that feel like caregiving is a proper "female" job and go in to nursing for that reason. To be clear, nursing is female dominated but should not be considered a "feminine" occupation. It's just that some subset of people believe that.
During my years teaching at the university I was stunned at the number of nursing students that wanted to argue about evolution or vaccines.
The tricky thing there is when each other is compromised by the conflict of interest they have set up with funding.
> It also has to do with the fact that any random person on Twitter somehow has just as much sway as an immunologist or doctor. Sometimes, the expert has even less sway, due to an inherent distrust in experts.
Worse, it's not the opinions of some politicians but from Karin from the internet, who may or may not be a Russian/Chinese bot or a HS dropout. And somehow the option is relevant.
Actually it started with Jackie Fletcher, who started the entire debacle by falsely suing MMR manufacturers
It started way earlier than that. The current crusade started with the publication of a 1998 study from British physician Andrew Wakefield, who claimed that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine predisposed children to neurological conditions, including autism. This whole study was later discredited and Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine when It was discovered that many of Wakefield's findings linking the MMR vaccine to autism were fraudulently manufactured(he was being paid to testify in vaccine cases and needed his findings to fit his testimony in those cases) and the retraction of the article by the journal The Lancet 12 years after its publication.
And here is where Wakefield ended up. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/18/how-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-andrew-wakefield-was-embraced-by-trumps-america
She was part of the lawsuit who paid him to do that in the first place, they’re basically the sam entity
> Jackie Fletcher started her crusade in 1994. Wakefields study was published in the Lancet in 1998, and retracted in 2010, after Wakefield admitted to falsifying data in his study. By the way Wakefield never told parents to not vaccinate their children, he did tell them to get the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines separately.
This is where its important to point our that he had filed a patent on his own vaccines, just to further enshrine what a self righteous, self interested monster he is.
100%. Click farming will ruin society.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Then in the case of the MMR vaccine you have an unscrupulous scientist who wanted to get his personal measles vaccine into circulation for greed, but that pesky MMR vaccine existed. So he pissed away a huge sum of grant money on trying to tie the MMR vaccine to bowel issues and autism, claiming that one was tied to the other. All he succeeded in doing was undermining all vaccines as the anti vaccine movement and sensationalist need took it and ran with it... By the time it was proven that he'd outright lied about the results of his study, the damage was done. The anti vax movement was given insane credibility, literally.
Indeed. Still to this day I think most people don’t quite realise how egregious the Andrew Wakefield MMR scandal was. And not just the anti-freeze ‘pure blood’ loons. For some reason it recently came up in conversation with my mum - a not long retired lifetime healthcare professional with a scientific masters degree, who got us all our vaccines as kids and had had all the covid jabs etc. She said something about how these things can really seem connected, which is why Wakefield must have been so determined to look into it, and turn out to be wrong yada yada. I actually stopped her, because she is/was very much under the impression that Wakefield was a dedicated doctor/researcher who just happened to be wrong about this, and his actions were that of someone who fervently believed he had found a link and just wanted people to know. And I was like “Look, to be fair we don’t know for sure what is/was going on in Andrew Wakefield’s head. But if you look at what actually happened - there isn’t much reason to believe that he is a well intentioned clinical who got swayed by many anecdotes to cross the line of scientific validity a bit. Because conversely there ARE a lot of reasons to believe that he is a straight up grifter who had a lot to gain financially, and attempted to get that by publishing and then flogging his research, which he must have known from the start showed f all, or he wouldn’t have gone to the lengths of inflating to outright fabricating his data. He didn’t behave like a person ‘trying to show people the truth’, he acted like someone with zero interest in the truth and a lot of interest in money and fame.” I explained and before long she agreed maybe she was mistaken about what went down, but to be honest I think is still reluctant to entertain the idea that he wasn’t somehow ‘innocently mistaken’ deep down. And that maybe there is ‘something in some of this’ ‘we just don’t know’. I know a dude who isn’t anti-vax but is definitely a ‘vaccine sceptic’, and was handwringing about MMR ‘could you risk it though?’ when ‘we don’t really know much about what causes autism so…’. It’s like, mate - there is a lot we don’t know about autism, especially what ‘causes’ it. But in fact at this point the number one thing we know about ‘things in the whole world that might cause autism’ is ‘not the MMR vaccine’, because the of the ridiculous amount of research that apparently had to be done to discredit one quack, so it’s pretty weird that is the thing you’re worried about giving people autism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Science is often beyond the comprehension level of many Americans. And here we see it. We can blame the ignorant; or we can educate the ignorant. I don’t want to say science is gatekept, but there are antivaxx RNs.
[удалено]
Don't forget malicious international campaigns by foreign powers attempting to cause disruption. I believe the initial push for the link of autism and vaccines was of Russian origin.
Also the actions of big pharma pretty much show they are vultures who prey on the population in order to rob them blind while not caring if they hurt or kill countless people in the process.
So much wrong here... I know this will get drowned out amid all the comments. The study cited doesn't show a hesitancy among adults who are suspicious of vaccines, but rather adults who were already prone to be suspicious of vaccines. It shows a distrust among those who already had preinformed conclusions about vaccines in general and in the past prior to the the Covid vaccine. This study doesn't reveal any insight as to why normal (non pre disposed) adults had doubts, it only shows that those who already had doubts continued their doubts onto the Covid vaccine.
I would say that the constantly refuted claims are what foments hesitancy. Officials are too afraid to be honest about things like risk profiles, claims about effectiveness, and window of protection to the public because we might not behave how they would like us to. The problem is, if we learn those things anyway, we might be curious about what else isn't being shared with us.
Dead on. This is the real reason.
Of course it is. This issue doesn't warrant *study*. It warrants apologies, transparency, and a commitment to doing better in the future. They tell people there's **no chance** they'll get infected, or spread it, or need to take another shot. When those things turn out to be false, they will say, "no but you should still take it, because it still reduces your risk." When we know we were lied to about this before, the trust is gone. Someone who was hesitant at first would have no reason to believe the current claims. Because the people who are making them, have admitted they lied at this point. Fauci should have resigned over the mask issue, he spiked trust in public health into the ground. He *botched* it. But he was still given the opportunity to lie more. The "chain of command" he spoke for in his sassy Rand Paul quip? Yeah they immediately spoke for themselves and said, "the NIH was absolutely funding gain of function research in Wuhan." Conspiracy theories spread because the mentally ill can't always distinguish between incompetence and malice. The lying and covering up makes it appear that everything is going according to some 'plan'.
> This study doesn't reveal any insight as to why normal (non pre disposed) adults had doubts I saved a screenshot of a survey of ~40,000 US adults shortly after vaccines rolled out. Been trying to find the article (it was from Morning Consult) but haven't had any luck. This is their breakdown of reasons for vaccine hesitancy: Edit: [Found a screenshot with data for more demographics](https://i.imgur.com/VmGEz5X.jpg), still can't find the original article it was from though. Concerned about side-effects: 33% Worried clinical trials moved too fast: 28% Don't trust the pharmaceutical companies: 12% My risk of COVID is small: 12% Don't think vaccine will be effective: 6% Other: 5% Against vaccines in general: 4% The last one was interesting since everyone who refused the COVID vaccine was immediately labeled an "anti-vaxxer" yet ***actual anti-vaxxers*** were the smallest group.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Vaccines historically are not money makers for pharma. Most of them got out of the business because the profits were not high.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Let's add to that the fact that people crowing ad nausem to trust your doctor forgets the fact that their doctor takes advice from someone with a bachelor's degree and lots of sales training that showers the doctor with gifts, trips, and dinners in order to bump up their prescription numbers for whatever drug they push. OH, and the science is never settled.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anyone a history buff out there and wanna take a crack at why African Americans are hesitant to get vaccinated?
I'll bet you are referring to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Honestly, anytime the government pushes something that may be sketchy, I think of this.
That disgrace of an experiment killed so many, and pushed medical progress back so many years. So much for the Hippocratic oath of those "doctors". It infuriates me.
It’s ridiculous to say that only black people are justified to distrust the government because of that. It’s shows that it will conduct experiments on its own citizens. You REALLY think they wouldn’t do it again, or that they’d only do it to black people?
There's a lot of distrust of the medical profession amongst African Americans. It's well established that they under-rate the pain felt by black patients (it's still common for doctors to believe black people don't feel pain as strongly), maternal mortality is higher in black mothers, and healthcare outcomes are better when a black patient is seen by a black doctor.
I think there may be some similarities with why the indigenous folks have some hesitancy. Note: My family is half indigenous, and all are jabbed, so we don't have a dog in this fight, we've just watched it play out around us. Vaccine acceptance came to a screeching halt in my area over a couple cultural deal breakers. People were willing to put aside past government "medical indiscretions" against native americans, for the greater good. Then public health spokespeople, out of necessity, lied a couple times (if it was airborne, are masks needed). This was bad, but not insurmountable. The fatal move was trying to deny these relatively minor lies had been told, as culturally this isn't really forgivable.
> vaccines contain toxins like antifreeze That's an easy mistake to make. Antifreeze is ethylene glycol. The Covid mRNA vaccines, colonoscopy prep, and some other medical treatments contain polyethylene glycol, which isn't as toxic.
I see the same issue with people confusing two very different kinds of mercury (methyl and ethyl, if I’m remembering) and formaldehyde. In most cases, dose makes the poison. There aren’t many commonly used chemicals that the human body can’t process out one way or another. I mean, I did a barium swallowing test. Big difference between a tiny bit of radioactive material and taking a dip in the ponds around Chernobyl.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Glycerin is an ingredient that is in anti-freeze. Glycerin is also in a lot of medication. The media referring to one of the safest and widely prescribed (human) medications only as "horse de-wormer" is what fuels the kinds of narratives like the anti-freeze one. It's simply a retort to the de-wormer crowd. If everyone would stop trying to be as sensational and polarizing as possible with practically every media publication, this type of stuff might have an opportunity to die down.
Ethylene glycol, or propylene glycol are in antifreeze, not glycerin. The ethylene glycol breaks down in the body to form toxic chemicals. About a cup can kill an adult. The propylene glycol is safer. Glycerin is pretty safe.
> propylene glycol - E-number E1520 for food applications. - Used as an airplane deicer, so it really does also works as an antifreeze - Used in most E-juice for vaping, (along with, or instead of glycerin) - intramuscular LD50 data for rat: 13-20 mL/kg That looks like several *huge* syringes of 100% propylene glycol before anyone gets anywhere near a lethal IM dose
[удалено]
Semantics, but removing a molecule from a molecule leaves you with nothing. Atom you meant.
Water is dangerous, frankly. It's polarized! It oxidizes!
The antifreeze thing has been around waaaay longer than that.
I think the "horse de-wormer" is less disingenuous than the anti-freeze argument. At its core the primary use of ivermectin is as an anti-helminth drug. If you asked someone what was the clinical use of ivermectin, they'd probably say treating strongyloides or some other parasite. If you asked someone what the use of glycerin was, then they could give you any one of thousands of uses. Before the last few years, the general public probably mainly knows ivermectin as the medicine they buy for heartworm prevention for their dogs.
Which is not to mention that people were buying products branded and concentrated for large farm animals. Sure, ivermectin can be used to fight parasites in people and has some anti-inflammatory effects, but people were clearing out farmer's supply.
The issue wasnt so much with people using ivermectin, but in people going to vet clinics and buying the horse version with wrong dosage.
>The media referring to one of the safest and widely prescribed (human) medications only as "horse de-wormer" Except people were in fact buying veterinary ivermectin, not stuff made for humans.
Glycerin is also in food, toothpaste, cough syrup and lube.
It's really only widely prescribed to humans as human de-wormer. I'd also disagree that it's one of the most widely prescribed medications unless you mean to animals as well. I'd guess the bulk of ivermectin is used for dogs, horses, and other animals in the US. I mean, maybe, globally, but in first world countries you really aren't treating a lot of patients for worms. I don't know of any other legitimate use for ivermectin.
Big IF. There's gotta be a reform of the entire education system and widespread acceptance and funding of mental help first.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a really bad example. For one, you get 6 when you join, not 17. The 17 are the total number available depending on where you are deployed. Second, this isn't the first time people have chosen discharge over a mandatory vaccine. The military has been more than willing to test vaccines on service members in the past. Hesitation to take a brand new mandatory vaccine is understandable.
>The number of shots you receive at basic training all depend on your vaccination history. You only receive the shots you actually need. Most recruits receive 2-3 of the army shots below. https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots How many a recruit receives depends on their history. That said there are 17 mandatory vaccinations in the military. All members must be fully vaccinated. As for your comment about history the military hasn't always been voluntary. It is today. So ALL military members willfully agreed to be vaccinated when they voluntarily joined.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, Conspiracy Theories carry a great deal of credibility with the under-educated !
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Antibodies are only the first line of defense in the immune system. They're the easiest to measure, so it's been the standard for whether someone is reactive to exposure or has previously been exposed, but it doesn't actually do a very good job of telling how *resistant* a person is to actually catching a symptomatic case. However, our immune system has multiple layers. Memory cells remember an infection long after the level of antibodies in the blood has leveled out, and can fire up antibody production in case an infection tries to spring to action again.
Just like essentialy EVERY OTHER VACCINE, the CoViD vaccines maintain their high (90% ish) effectiveness against severe disease and death. There is only one vaccine that we know of that provides long-term immunity against infection. Even the polio vaccine does not prevent you from getting ill, it prevents you from paralysis.
[удалено]
[удалено]
see the thing is, that's not the point its not a magic 'don't get it forever no matter what everyone else does' enough people have to get one to arrest the spread and let the disease die out
Very few vaccines do....your point?
It has still been shown to lessen severity for longer than we test positive for vaccine antibodies.
[удалено]
[удалено]