http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/responding-to-anti-vaccine-misinformation-understanding-the-issues/"...
Anna Kata in the Department of Anthropology of McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario has analyzed and categorized these arguments.<1> The paper, A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet set out to examine and analyze antivaccination websites. Google searches were used to identify the highest-ranked anti-vaccine sites using typical search strategies. Arguments were categorized and examined: What themes were common, and why were these arguments appealing? Eight antivaccination sites were eventually included and studied, including Global Research, Vaccine Liberation, Vaccination News, the Canadian Vaccination Risk Awareness Network, WHALE.to, Vaccination, Vaccination Debate, and Wikipedia’s “Vaccine Controversy” page.
...
As long as there have been vaccinations, there have those that oppose them. The underlying themes have changed little since the 18th century, despite the demonstrable successes of vaccines. Kata suggests this indicates the presence of deeper social and political tensions that manifest as different arguments, depending on the era: Where civil rights and government distrust were historically more common, today, rejection of scientific evidence and of the science-based model of disease seems more prevalent, with a growing embrace of different (non-science-based) models of disease. But each person’s reason for rejection may be different, and it may manifest in how they interact with health care professionals. Some may trust the pharmacist, and others may see the pharmacist as just a cog in the industrial-pharmaceutical complex.
The internet brought democratization of information. Web 2.0’s social networking has led to the evolution of new social networks that make it easy for anyone with fears of vaccines to find the confirmation bias needed to reassure themselves that vaccines are bad. Kata implicates much of the modern antivaccination sentiment to postmodern concepts of society. To the postmodernist, there are no facts, only truths, and all truths are socially constructed. Because they’re socially constructed, they are subject to the biases and prejudices of the observer. This places the observer as the final arbiter of truth, regardless of expertise. To the post modernist, even basic science is to be questioned, because how can we “REALLY” know? The consequence of postmodernism is that the opinion of the pharmacist or physician becomes just that: one opinion that is considered alongside all others, including those without any relevant expertise or education.
It’s clear that the reasons for antivaccination sentiment can vary, and not all arguments are amenable to the simple provision of education or evidence. Having an understanding of the underlying issues that each patient may bring forward, and their underlying perspective on science, facts, and evidence can help pharmacists comprehend the nature of common anti-vaccine arguments. By keeping the lines of communication open, and being prepared to recognize vaccine misinformation, pharmacists can work to build trust and reinforce their voice as credible, trusted sources of information."--------------------------------
And a related piece...
Vaccine Fears: What is the Pharmacist’s Role?http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/vaccine-fears-what-is-the-pharmacists-role/--------------------------------
So, then, what is the role of a progressive who truly respects science and honest dialogue?
It's not easy discussing this online. Emotions take over as "believers" repeat the same stuff over and over, while ignoring the evidence. Personally, I am at a loss at this point in time.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
