(September 9, 2015 at 10:10 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(September 8, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Maybe it's bullshit. What works better than love an empathy?

Education.

And beating them with a learning stick

(September 9, 2015 at 10:13 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: You're making a blanket statement that doctors/the medical industry are always responsible when a patient makes a fucked up decision, and seriously, you need to fuck off with that shit. It just isn't true.

Redbeard it is clear that you haven't read anything academic. At least read a Journal artice before coming on here and claiming I'm spouting "my" POV (which I'm NOT!!).

White et al. 2015.

(September 9, 2015 at 10:13 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: My first wife and I had a horrible experience at the doctor one time over a form she needed signed for work. It was a total professional meltdown, complete with the staff violating Hippa right in the (very full) lobby concerning my ex's psychiatric history. Total clusterfuck. You know what we did? We got her a different fucking doctor. We could have forsaken medical care for ourselves and our (luckily non-existent) children forever, but we got a different doctor at a different practice. It wasn't even hard.

There are rural Communities in Australia that are 12 hours drive (or further) from the nearest city. And that's if there is a road - there is no road to Kiwirrkurra for example. We have Indigenous people who feel extreme distress any time they have move out of Country to receive health services:



Usually there is only one practise that is accessible by people in these remote regions - many of the people do not own cars and cannot travel the distance required to seek another service if they wanted to. Furthermore it is very difficult to persuade practitioners (including nurses) to go to these regions; and many of them cannot cope with being so far away from their friends, families, culture, and way of life (in fact this is a problem even in booming mining towns as well).

Exactly how do you expect the patients I just described - many of who do not speak English, and if they do it's a 3rd or 4th language for them (there are at least 150 different Indigenous languages) - to access an alternative health service? Furthermore when a person does travel, with an elder, for healthcare imagine how distressing it is for them to experience waiting extensively long periods of time at the hospital or clinic whilst they try to locate someone who can understand at least one language that they know between them. There are many languages that fewer than 1000 people speak. So tell me how do they have a "choice" in healthcare service - even if they were willing to travel to any point of Australia to receive it?

Just because the barrier doesn't exist for you Redbeard doesn't mean it doesn't exist for other people. I don't believe you or I could possibly imagine what it's like for someone who's never seen a city in their life to be forced to travel to a strange overcrowded place, where nobody understands your language, where there are none of your own people (except for an elder from your community who travelled with you and a translator to tell you what the clinicians are saying). You may even need a translator for your translator as well (so try guessing how difficult it would be to understand the foreign-language speaking person then).

(September 11, 2015 at 3:55 am)Aractus Wrote:

---

(September 9, 2015 at 10:13 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: You're making a blanket statement that doctors/the medical industry are always responsible when a patient makes a fucked up decision, and seriously, you need to fuck off with that shit. It just isn't true.

Redbeard it is clear that you haven't read anything academic. At least read a Journal artice before coming on here and claiming I'm spouting "my" POV (which I'm NOT!!).

White et al. 2015.

(September 9, 2015 at 10:13 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: My first wife and I had a horrible experience at the doctor one time over a form she needed signed for work. It was a total professional meltdown, complete with the staff violating Hippa right in the (very full) lobby concerning my ex's psychiatric history. Total clusterfuck. You know what we did? We got her a different fucking doctor. We could have forsaken medical care for ourselves and our (luckily non-existent) children forever, but we got a different doctor at a different practice. It wasn't even hard.

There are rural Communities in Australia that are 12 hours drive (or further) from the nearest city. And that's if there is a road - there is no road to Kiwirrkurra for example. We have Indigenous people who feel extreme distress any time they have move out of Country to receive health services:



Usually there is only one practise that is accessible by people in these remote regions - many of the people do not own cars and cannot travel the distance required to seek another service if they wanted to. Furthermore it is very difficult to persuade practitioners (including nurses) to go to these regions; and many of them cannot cope with being so far away from their friends, families, culture, and way of life (in fact this is a problem even in booming mining towns as well).

Exactly how do you expect the patients I just described - many of who do not speak English, and if they do it's a 3rd or 4th language for them (there are at least 150 different Indigenous languages) - to access an alternative health service? Furthermore when a person does travel, with an elder, for healthcare imagine how distressing it is for them to experience waiting extensively long periods of time at the hospital or clinic whilst they try to locate someone who can understand at least one language that they know between them. There are many languages that fewer than 1000 people speak. So tell me how do they have a "choice" in healthcare service - even if they were willing to travel to any point of Australia to receive it?

Just because the barrier doesn't exist for you Redbeard doesn't mean it doesn't exist for other people. I don't believe you or I could possibly imagine what it's like for someone who's never seen a city in their life to be forced to travel to a strange overcrowded place, where nobody understands your language, where there are none of your own people (except for an elder from your community who travelled with you and a translator to tell you what the clinicians are saying). You may even need a translator for your translator as well (so try guessing how difficult it would be to understand the foreign-language speaking person then).

---

Honestly, after mh.brewer crushed you up and snorted you off his desk, I don't see why we need to keep going. I hope you're just taking your time typing up a really good reply to him and started with me since I seem to be easier.


Furthermore, your points (that aren't ad hominem) have been pretty well addressed by other people already. Indigenous people like the ones you describe are not the people we're talking about. When we say Anti-Vaxxers, we're talking about people in developed areas who have access to the right information and have the education to comprehend it and choose to ignore it because (insert reason), and I at least am generally talking about members of the American population. I'm talking about people who should know better and choose not to, and put their children at risk along with other population members who are not immunized and have no choice (like some of the people brewer mentioned). I'm talking about celebrities who have no medical training taking their pulpits and convincing their clay-minded fans that vaccines cause autism. Your point about indigenous people who probably don't have access to a LOT of things is practically unrelated to the topic at hand.

Honestly Redbeard I've been the only one to post anything scholarly in this thread. Here's another:





As to my previous post YOU'RE THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIM THAT PEOPLE CAN JUST GO AND ACCESS ANOTHER SERVICE. So either back it up or retract it. Healthcare services are public services for everyone. You can't come back and say "you can't make reference to minorities" that isn't a valid response.

If you're really going to play that card then read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from which I quote:

Article 21.
   (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(September 10, 2015 at 3:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

---

mh.brewer

(September 7, 2015 at 10:34 pm)Aractus Wrote: Look this is my field of study,

Credentials please. Articles, books, papers, any supporting evidence.

Aractus:

Noticed you chose not to respond. I will. Graduate University of Nebraska Medical Center, 1983. Dr. of Clinical Pharmacy, speciality in psych and geriatrics.

I don't like (or even really know how to use) the quote function. I've copied and pasted parts of some of your posts (in black type). If you feel they are in error I am  willing to correct them if they need correction. My response in blue.  

Referencing the OP link: “Did she have a good reason? Yes in my opinion she did [edit] she had a negative experience which is an indication that the healthcare service is inadequate." Opinion based on hearsay and very limited facts. I doubt that the MD only offered her pills. I don't believe there are not enough facts for either of us to come to an objective opinion. I will concede that she had fear/mistrust (justified or unjustified).


“But wait a second. We have (Australia) maybe 93-94% rate of childhood immunisation. Now compare that to say the fact that 20% of women in Australia report that they have experienced childhood sex abuse.” Off topic. Adds no value to the vaccination discussion.

"And I take issue with the statement that "children who don't get vaccinated put other children at risk". [edit]  2. No they don't, they just don't participate in herd protection." Actually yes they do. Children, vaccinated or not, are part of the herd. The non-vaccinated by choice would be considered an anti-participant/anti-portection/free rider. They have the potential to spread disease to other parts of the non-vaccinated herd (members of the herd/community without choice, children under 15 months, persons without immunity due to genetics, disease, disease treatment or old age. Again, please notice that these individuals have no choice). If infected and released into the herd they have the ability to transmit the disease directly or indirectly (produce a subclinical infection in the vaccinated who then have the ability to infect the members of the herd/community without choice).

"4. The so-called harm that people don't vaccinate their children is only a "potential" I agree. However it is a potential that society has deemed an unacceptable risk. That’s why there are vaccination schedules in both our countries.
 
"Immunisation is about preventing outbreaks, not individual cases. So this whole argument that parents are putting their own children at greater risk is not correct - they are putting the community at greater risk." This is incorrect, it is about both. Don’t think it’s about individuals? Have the child/parent/you take a trip to an endemic area with measles, cholera or yellow fever without being vaccinated and come into direct contact with the infected, taking no extra precautions. Look at the US and Aus requirements for individual vaccination when coming from another country with no proof of vaccination. Those individuals are given a choice, get the required vaccinations or don’t become part of this herd/society.
 
"Particularly that you shouldn't victim-blame people who have distrust in health services." I won’t blame them. However, they do have a choice, unlike other members of the herd/community. I will state that there should be societal consequences for their actions. The primary one (as stated in an earlier post) isolation. If the isolation is not complied with then other consequences should be enforced.

"Once you get to 95% it doesn't matter about the other 5%. [edit] There's no need to call it selfish, as long as 95% are immunised it doesn't matter whether the last 5% are or aren't. Individual cases do not matter. [edit] Vaccinating 95% or more of the total population provides the maximum possible protection." Herd protection position. Herd protection only applies when the herd remains static, relatively non-changing. In modern society with ability to travel outside the herd, the herd protection logic fails. The non-vaccinated that travel outside the herd (into areas where they become susceptible to infection) if infected then have the ability to bring the infection back to the members of the herd/community that are without choice. Again, this is why the US and Aus have vaccination protocols for individuals that travel to endemic areas. First to protect the individual while there, second to protect the disease from returning to the herd.

"If you want to blame anyone blame doctors, nurses, and pharmacists for not communicating the need to their patients effectively. [edit] They slip through the net often because they don't follow it up by getting advice from their GPs, and their GPs don't bother to actively engage their clients to get their children immunised. [edit] Is an indication that there's something wrong with healthcare delivery." Sounds like everyone is blaming. I agree that both sides have responsibilities. For vaccination, which is regulated by society, the parents/patients have the majority of responsibility. It is not feasible (physically/economically) for healthcare to contact every individual. If the parents/patients want to be a part of the herd/society (without limitations), it is their ultimate responsibility.

"Again this isn't "my view". I'm stating the conventional wisdom of the healthcare professionals." I read the two articles that were online. They are directed at healthcare in general, not vaccination specific. Healthcare in “general” is not a societal requirement, vaccination is (at least in US and Aus). If you can provide an article specific to vaccination I’ll be happy to read it. In fact I’ll provide one myself: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rele...itancy/en/

My only point is that if an individual (or their children), for what ever reason (fear,ignorance,mistrust), knowingly elects to not get vaccinated then they need to be aware that they may not have all of the rights and privileges of those who do vaccinate. That there may/should be consequences. The first is voluntary isolation, restricted movement/contact, i.e. day care, public/private school participation, public transportation, public gathering places, public events (Disneyland comes to mind)....... If the individuals choose not to abide by the imposed isolation/restrictions, then the society needs a vehicle to have them enforced. The second, responsibility for damages caused by infecting others in society who don't have the ability to choose (legal-criminal or civil).

---

mh. I already posted numerous scholarly sources in this thread, if there is something you are unclear on be specific and I can easily point you to further reading from peer-review material.

All anyone else has posted is hearsay and anecdotal evidence.

Did you even read the WHO link that you posted? "18 August 2015 | Geneva - People who delay or refuse vaccines for themselves or their children are presenting a growing challenge for countries seeking to close the immunization gap." How is that in any way inconsistent with what I've said?

Note: "Vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of safe vaccines despite availability of vaccination services." - they don't make a delineation between known safe vaccines and vaccines that have since been withdrawn, like the Lyme Disease vaccine. Most people do NOT know which ones are "safe" and which are not ... that itself is part of the problem. Anyone who has had a negative experience, or heard about a negative experience from an associate, with a non-safe vaccine, or simply who had the vaccine didn't have a negative experience but has heard it has been withdrawn will rightly become hesitant towards other vaccines in the future.


"The recommendations proposed by WHO aim to increase the understanding of vaccine hesitancy, its determinants and challenges. They also suggest ways organizations can increase acceptance of vaccines, share effective practices, and develop new tools to assess and address hesitancy."

That's exactly what I've been saying.

"Concerns about vaccine safety can be linked to vaccine hesitancy, but safety concerns are only one of many factors that may drive hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy can be caused by other factors such as: negative beliefs based on myths, e.g. that vaccination of women leads to infertility; misinformation; mistrust in the health care professional or health care system; the role of influential leaders; costs; geographic barriers and concerns about vaccine safety."

That's also verbatim what I've been saying.

"But the authors note there is no “magic bullet,” or single intervention strategy that works for all instances of vaccine hesitancy. The magnitude and setting of the problem varies and must be diagnosed for each instance to develop tailored strategies to improve vaccine acceptance."

That's exactly what I said when responding to "parenting classes".

"Effective communication is key to dispelling fears, addressing concerns and promoting acceptance of vaccination."

That's verbatim what I said when Parkers Tan claimed that "these people can't be reasoned with".

"Vaccine hesitancy is not only an issue in high income countries, but is a complex, rapidly changing global problem that varies widely."

Again that's exactly what I've said repeatedly. So what exactly about that WHO article are you claiming I disagree with?

(September 11, 2015 at 7:04 am)Aractus Wrote: Honestly Redbeard I've been the only one to post anything scholarly in this thread. Here's another:





As to my previous post YOU'RE THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIM THAT PEOPLE CAN JUST GO AND ACCESS ANOTHER SERVICE. So either back it up or retract it. Healthcare services are public services for everyone. You can't come back and say "you can't make reference to minorities" that isn't a valid response.

If you're really going to play that card then read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from which I quote:

Article 21.
   (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

The minorities you're talking about aren't the people we're describing as "Anti-Vaxxers." Those people fail to access healthcare for completely different reasons that need to be addressed in completely different ways. Their fear and non-knowledge is primarily a matter of cultural limitation. Suggesting that those people are dumb or lazy for not getting health care would indeed be victim blaming, and the problems that prevent those people from getting care absolutely need to be addressed.


Those are not Anti-Vaxxers. Anti-Vaxxers are people who have access to vaccines and proper medical information but willfully choose not to get vaccines (for themselves and/or their children) because of irrational fears and/or bad ideas. Unlike the minorities you describe, their mistrust is less often caused by cultural norms or lack of options than by willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills coupled with incidental exposure to damaging information. Those people should be educated (as politely as possible), the ones that won't be educated should be shamed, and the ones that are beyond shame should should not be allowed to participate in consensual society since they refuse to follow its rules. That's how bad ideas are generally handled. Lots of people get the soft approach and get the picture, and some people aren't so lucky or rational. Such is life.

(September 11, 2015 at 8:13 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Those are not Anti-Vaxxers. Anti-Vaxxers are people who have access to vaccines and proper medical information but willfully choose not to get vaccines (for themselves and/or their children) because of irrational fears and/or bad ideas. Unlike the minorities you describe, their mistrust is less often caused by cultural norms or lack of options than by willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills coupled with incidental exposure to damaging information. Those people should be educated (as politely as possible), the ones that won't be educated should be shamed, and the ones that are beyond shame should should not be allowed to participate in consensual society since they refuse to follow its rules. That's how bad ideas are generally handled. Lots of people get the soft approach and get the picture, and some people aren't so lucky or rational. Such is life.

Firstly, I suggest you read the WHO link that mh.brewer provided as it clearly explains that 'vaccine resistance' is due to failings in healthcare delivery:

"Effective communication is key to dispelling fears, addressing concerns and promoting acceptance of vaccination."

And at no point do they suggest blaming the patients!! FURTHERMORE:


"But the authors note there is no “magic bullet,” or single intervention strategy that works for all instances of vaccine hesitancy. The magnitude and setting of the problem varies and must be diagnosed for each instance to develop tailored strategies to improve vaccine acceptance."

It is not all about education. It's not a one-method fix. I've explained this many many times.

You might be willing to believe what a teacher at your school tells you about healthcare, for example. Now I wouldn't - because of my own experiences. If a school teacher told me the sky was blue, I would turn around and look out the window to be sure. You could easily call me overly critical since anything you learn in today's schools will be obsolete in a few years anyway - but that's how I feel. So if I was delivered a health message through a school - I would be extremely sceptical, to say the least. I would check that the sky is still blue.

Now I believe I said this before - you need to ensure the person who delivers the message is not just "qualified" but will be accepted by the person who you are delivering the message to.

If you know anything about advertising you know about targeting demographics. You can run a government-run education advertising campaign, but it's almost impossible to target everyone, and even if you did you would do a survey to determine which demographics received your message and which didn't. Even among those who received it the most there will be a proportion who didn't.

Redbeard you have shown a clear lack of critical thinking in this thread. And if I can recognise it easily then so could a so-called "anti-" that you talk to.

To be honest why don't you spend your time on breast cancer screenings instead? There's a far bigger need for improvement there than there is for improvement in vaccination rates.

Finally, by the way, "Their fear and non-knowledge is primarily a matter of cultural limitation." No it isn't. I'd explain it to you but it would go over your head.

(September 11, 2015 at 9:28 am)Aractus Wrote: Finally, by the way, "Their fear and non-knowledge is primarily a matter of cultural limitation." No it isn't. I'd explain it to you but it would go over your head.

Oh, ok. In that case, go fuck yourself, you pretentious little cum-sock. Have fun being an ignorant dipshit who pretends to know what he's talking about.

Toodles.

(September 11, 2015 at 7:46 am)Aractus Wrote: Did you even read the WHO link that you posted? [edit] So what exactly about that WHO article are you claiming I disagree with?

To answer: yes and nothing. I was helping make your point about vaccine education more effectively than your other links. It's not that you don't have a point about some individuals/groups/herds being hesitant or refusing. The US has the same (or at least similar) issues with Native Americans. My guess is that natives of Alaska and some tight knit immigrant groups in the US can be included also.

It's just that your point (healthcare delivery fails) is not the only issue that is going on. That is what I (and I believe others here) have been trying to get across.

I can't speak for Aus, but in the US ever since vaccinations were tied to autism (falsely) there has been concerted efforts by the alternative medicine factions (i.e. homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, and physician quacks..........) to foster that belief, partially/primarily for profit. It did not help that the vaccination/autism falsehood evidence took so long to come to light. During the "we're not sure" time the alternative medicine faction built up support and followers through a number of methods (media, celebrity endorsement, protests.....). Again, I don't know about Aus, but in the US, the media did not promote the safety of vaccinations (no autism link) with any where near the same zeal as when they were thought unsafe. It would not get the same ratings so it was not done. Not one public figure (at least that I know of) has publicly admitted that they (even might) have been wrong. We are now living with the aftermath of that original falsehood. The "vaccines are not safe" mentality is unfortunately ingrained into part of the US society.

So, until that can be corrected (which at this point may take a tragedy), my position is that the vaccine hesitant/refusers (for what ever reason, and who are in the minority but still pose a significant health threat) need to understand that you just can't say no without consequences. We have day care and school attendance consequences now, but I think additional consequences need to be adopted (see prior post). I'm hesitant about paying taxes, I don't understand and fear them. Can I just say no and not pay without out consequences? I hesitant about taking a drivers test (fear of failing), can I just not take it and continue to drive? I know, not nearly the same but it does make a point.

Do you have any response related to herd immunity problems? Individual immunization does not matter?

Does this clear the air or do we need to continue? Or we can agree to disagree. Your choice.

(September 11, 2015 at 7:03 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I can't speak for Aus, but in the US ever since vaccinations were tied to autism (falsely)

I've pointed out many times that the Wakefield et al. 1998 (ret.) paper only deals with the MMR vaccine.

The MMR vaccine has since been vetted.

However other vaccines have been withdrawn from the market, some of them following adverse effects (there was one such case in 2010, with numerous hospitalisations and at least one death! ). That flu vaccine was deemed unsafe. Not by tinfoil-hat wearing loonies but by the Health department and the State and Commonwealth governments. So the question that patients rightly ask is "why did they ever allow a potentially dangerous vaccine on the market in the first place?" And the simple answer is that vaccines are NOT held to the same standards as other pharmaceuticals when it comes to ensuring their safety. The argument of course being that "you can't wait 6 years for clinical trials because the virus will mutate" - and of course it it will, and therein lies the problem. There is no way to demonstrate that a vaccine is safe - unless there has been clinical trials, or unless it has already been used for a number of years without problem. Many people question the ethics of allowing potentially problematic medicine to be administered in the first place.

And by the way, I'm not making anything up - the TGA has a specific committee to deal with assessing the safety of vaccines. The have a specific information page for reporting adverse effects following vaccines or medication, note what they say on that page "You don't need to be certain, just suspicious!".

You have a completely romanticised view of medications and vaccines. Sadly things do go wrong. And any negative experience causes distrust in the healthcare consumer. The fact that you can't move on from the MMR-autism debate (and you misquoted it) and recognise that it's not by any means the pillar of irrational vaccine fear shows your views on the issue are clouded by a clear belief-bias.

IF the government does get all decisions about the safety of vaccines right ALL of the time you would have a point - but the fact is they do not. It is very unlikely that such an event will ever personally affect an individual person - but that doesn't stop people from buying lottery tickets either. And people do have an expectation that they do not have to tolerate the possibility of a TGA-approved medication being unsafe.


The issue you have is that you seem to think that people who have a fear of vaccines are all linked to believing that the MMR vaccine can trigger autism. If that was true it doesn't explain why people have a fear of other vaccines that aren't the MMR vaccine. As I've just explained there are plenty of other valid reasons for people to fear vaccines.