This was a really interesting read. I can't imagine the frustration the authors of this and related research must feel. I just can't understand someone, especially doctors, who have the ability to...
This was a really interesting read. I can't imagine the frustration the authors of this and related research must feel.
I just can't understand someone, especially doctors, who have the ability to read and go through the research still be anti-vax.
You have to start from a place where you assume someone that went through 10-ish years of schooling has some critical thinking skills and then you look for the guiding principle they operate...
Exemplary
You have to start from a place where you assume someone that went through 10-ish years of schooling has some critical thinking skills and then you look for the guiding principle they operate under. Here is the most well reasoned argument that you can make for the anti-vax argument. (there are plenty of bad ones that don't matter as much as this one)
Every pill, injection, and medical procedure carries with it some risk of a negative outcome. No matter trivial of a medical choice you make it carries with it some risk of adverse outcomes. You've got a headache, you take a tablet of acetaminophen which you know has a risk of liver damage in high doses and other harm if taken long term. In that moment you value the relief from the headache more than you fear the risk of the side effects. You're a reasonable, fairly logical person, so you make this decision based on underlying statistics and risks that you believe.
Dismissing them as crazy is a bad decision as you lose their ear to speak truth to them. It has to be about understanding them and working on the underlying assumptions and statistics rather than the behaviors that derive from those assumptions and statistics. Try to convince them that the harm from vaccines is real but disproportionally exagerated to the number of real cases.
My comment was a bit terse. I do agree that we cannot simply dismiss anti-vax as ignorant or crazy. I will have to look for the poll, but the majority, like over 70% of children not vaccinated in...
My comment was a bit terse. I do agree that we cannot simply dismiss anti-vax as ignorant or crazy. I will have to look for the poll, but the majority, like over 70% of children not vaccinated in Canada is because their parents didn't get around to it, not because they were against it. The issue of not vaccinating is more than how the media has generally presented it. And honestly to the detriment of the cause as now parents with questions and valid concerns are afraid to ask and openly discuss them.
However, with regards to this specific article, I believe there is a professional standard not met by the doctors granting the deferalls and exemptions. They are not laypeople.
My wife and all the women in her family were freaked out about the MTHFR gene because their grandma was told her blood clots and other ailments were all related to that specific gene. They got...
My wife and all the women in her family were freaked out about the MTHFR gene because their grandma was told her blood clots and other ailments were all related to that specific gene. They got their testing a few years back through their primary care physician. In fact, my wife was denied a surgery a couple years back because the doctor cited that the MTHFR variant she carried caused clotting problems.
I think people tend to jump to erroneous conclusions because they feel more comfortable blaming problems on something rather than the unknown.
This was a really interesting read. I can't imagine the frustration the authors of this and related research must feel.
I just can't understand someone, especially doctors, who have the ability to read and go through the research still be anti-vax.
You have to start from a place where you assume someone that went through 10-ish years of schooling has some critical thinking skills and then you look for the guiding principle they operate under. Here is the most well reasoned argument that you can make for the anti-vax argument. (there are plenty of bad ones that don't matter as much as this one)
Every pill, injection, and medical procedure carries with it some risk of a negative outcome. No matter trivial of a medical choice you make it carries with it some risk of adverse outcomes. You've got a headache, you take a tablet of acetaminophen which you know has a risk of liver damage in high doses and other harm if taken long term. In that moment you value the relief from the headache more than you fear the risk of the side effects. You're a reasonable, fairly logical person, so you make this decision based on underlying statistics and risks that you believe.
Now if we translate that same argument to vax/anti-vax debate you've got a child at risk for various communicable diseases, they haven't been sick with the disease, you haven't been sick, no one you know of has been sick with it. Now you're considering the risk of the procedure, you know it causes severe reactions sometimes, everything from stunted limb growth to Guillain-Barré to death. You've also seen plenty of vocal people who as far as you can tell have been harmed by it, displaying and attesting to their damage. And what it appears to show at least anecdotally is that the rate of harm is significantly higher than officially reported. You don't know why the rates are so low but you can at least back-of-envelope tell that the risk is kind of high. Now you have a decision to make do you accept the official rates of vaccine side effects and disease risk or do you operate under a different set of statistics? If you choose the latter then an anti-vax position is reasonable, if you choose the official numbers as your source of truth then you vaccinate.
Dismissing them as crazy is a bad decision as you lose their ear to speak truth to them. It has to be about understanding them and working on the underlying assumptions and statistics rather than the behaviors that derive from those assumptions and statistics. Try to convince them that the harm from vaccines is real but disproportionally exagerated to the number of real cases.
My comment was a bit terse. I do agree that we cannot simply dismiss anti-vax as ignorant or crazy. I will have to look for the poll, but the majority, like over 70% of children not vaccinated in Canada is because their parents didn't get around to it, not because they were against it. The issue of not vaccinating is more than how the media has generally presented it. And honestly to the detriment of the cause as now parents with questions and valid concerns are afraid to ask and openly discuss them.
However, with regards to this specific article, I believe there is a professional standard not met by the doctors granting the deferalls and exemptions. They are not laypeople.
My wife and all the women in her family were freaked out about the MTHFR gene because their grandma was told her blood clots and other ailments were all related to that specific gene. They got their testing a few years back through their primary care physician. In fact, my wife was denied a surgery a couple years back because the doctor cited that the MTHFR variant she carried caused clotting problems.
I think people tend to jump to erroneous conclusions because they feel more comfortable blaming problems on something rather than the unknown.