Archive

Archive for the ‘Vaccine Myths’ Category

Rise in Vaccine Hesitancy Related to Pursuit of Purity: A Conversation with Professor Larson

This article was originally published in Horizon magazine by Gary Finnegan. It is being republished  to provide much needed perspective on the issues pertaining to vaccine hesitancy around the world.

 

The rise of alternative health practices and a quest for purity can partly explain the falling confidence in vaccines which is driving outbreaks of preventable diseases such as measles, according to Heidi Larson, professor of anthropology, risk and decision medicine at the UK’s London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. She is working to understand the causes of vaccine hesitancy in order to devise ways of rebuilding trust.

Why would people opt out of recommended vaccines?

‘Most people have their recommended vaccines but many do not. In some cases, people are missing out on immunisation because they cannot access vaccines. But there is a growing and concerning trend that shows people with access and education are saying “no thanks”. This is a real challenge because it’s driven by belief and it’s difficult to change people’s minds when they have decided that they don’t want or need a vaccine.’

Our 2016 study in 67 countries found that Europe was the most sceptical region in the world.

Heidi Larson, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK 

What are the specific reasons people give when declining to immunise their child?

‘Sometimes there are concerns about vaccine ingredients, usually based on a misinterpretation of the science. There is misinformation circulating online about, for example, some compounds that contain metals. But there are also strong underlying beliefs linked to religion, philosophy and politics. In the US, some states allow philosophical exemptions from mandatory vaccination – although California repealed this opt-out option after a major measles outbreak in Disneyland.

‘One of the biggest lessons of our research is that you can never assume what’s in people’s mind nor assume that simply explaining science can change their opinion. People’s reasons for rejecting vaccines could stem from a bad experience at a healthcare facility, general distrust in the government, in medicine or in industry – it’s a real mix but you have to understand their reasons if you are to address concerns and prevent outbreaks of preventable disease.’

How is the decision to vaccinate political?

‘Vaccines are regulated, recommended and sometimes mandated by government or public authorities. In the US, researchers have looked at values-based vaccine rejection. Two major values can be seen: purity and liberty. For some, the idea of government influence over health is unacceptable.’

People need more support to maintain confidence in vaccines, says Dr Heidi Larson. Image credit - Jon Spaull

People need more support to maintain confidence in vaccines, says Dr Heidi Larson. Image credit – Jon Spaull

Do all countries and cultures share the same concerns about vaccines?

‘Ten years ago, the answer was no. We saw distinctions between the UK, where a (now withdrawn) 1998 research paper incorrectly linked the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and autism, and France, whose main vaccine concern was suspected – albeit unproven – links between Hepatitis B vaccines and multiple sclerosis. The UK public was generally not worried about Hepatitis B and the French public was unconcerned about MMR. Now, because information is shared rapidly online and online translation tools are freely available, rumours and myths spread more quickly.’

Does the public expect medicines and vaccines to carry zero risks?

‘Vaccines are different from medicines – they are preventative and given to healthy people. If you are sick, your attitude to intervention and risk is much different. In addition, vaccines are often recommended for people who are most vulnerable – children and pregnant women. Vaccination is, by its nature, somewhat invasive as most vaccines are given by injection, and this provokes an emotional reaction such as fear and anxiety. Indeed, one of the unhelpful trends we notice is that images of needles are commonly used in media coverage about vaccines – you rarely even see a person in the picture.’

Can information fix ‘fake news’?

‘We will always need public communication, but that alone will not fix things. I’m not a great believer in hitting rumours on the head by myth-busting or debunking falsehoods. We need to be more sophisticated and to build strong transnational networks to pick up rumours and misinformation early and surround them with accurate and positive information in support of vaccination.’

Through your Vaccine Confidence Index, you have surveyed opinion on vaccines in 67 countries. What did you find?

‘We came up with a systematic approach to measuring vaccine hesitancy through repeated global surveys. One of the reasons the issue of vaccine reluctance and refusal has not been addressed in any comprehensive way is that it was seen as complex and too fuzzy to measure. It was written off as “not fact” and perceived to be propagated by those who are ignorant, rather than recognising that, fact-or-not fact, these perceptions impact on vaccine uptake and risk disease outbreaks. Our 2016 study in 67 countries found that Europe was the most sceptical region in the world – France was the least positive about vaccines. Now we are planning to rerun the survey in Europe to see if recent devastating measles outbreaks – which have killed 50 people in Europe (since the beginning of 2016) – may have changed minds.’

There were 1,346 cases of measles in Europe in 2008 and 19,570 cases in 2017. Image credit - Horizon

There were 1,346 cases of measles in Europe in 2008 and 19,570 cases in 2017. Image credit – Horizon

How can this information be used to reduce preventable deaths?

‘First you need to understand what’s driving a decline in vaccination rates and only then can you come up with an appropriate response. The needed intervention will vary depending on whether the problem is vaccine supply or access to vaccines, inadequate awareness of disease risk, concern over vaccine safety risks, including ingredients, or general distrust in authority.’

How can people be persuaded that vaccines are safe and what role can research play?

‘Two of our biggest projects are EU-funded initiatives aimed at understanding drivers of vaccine confidence and developing interventions to build trust. One – EBODAC – focuses on trust building and community engagement around recruiting participants into Ebola vaccine trials in Africa, including investigating the evolution and impacts of negative rumours, such as those that led to the suspension of two Ebola vaccine trials in Ghana.

‘Another is the ADVANCE consortium where we are developing a consistent and coordinated approach to assessing vaccine benefits and risks, including more open and coordinated access to relevant data. For example, if a concern is raised about a particular vaccine, we need to be able to determine whether the rates of a reported adverse event are any different among those who are not vaccinated.’

What is the future of this field?

‘We need to do a better job in schools, helping children to understand essential concepts about how immune systems work to fight disease and how vaccines help build our body’s own protection against infection. Medical school curricula also need to focus more on vaccination, including how to engage with patients who have questions about vaccines.  Health authorities need more capacity to respond to vaccine confidence issues, not just by debunking myths, or just providing facts, but by understanding what is driving the concerns, where they are coming from and surrounding them with positive, informed people. The majority of people still believe in vaccines, but they need more support to sustain their confidence.’

If you liked this article, please consider sharing it on social media.

 

 

Five Important Reasons to Vaccinate Your Child

April 23, 2018 2 comments

Every parent wants to do what’s best for their children. However, when parents are bombarded by conflicting messages, it can be a struggle to try to determine what is best.  Every decision – from the type of car seat to purchase, to how to soothe a fussy child – elicits a variety of opinions.  But when it comes to protecting our children from dangerous and sometimes deadly diseases, parents should rely on evidence based information from trusted sources.  

In honor of National Infant Immunization Week 2018, we’ve outlined some of the top reasons experts give for immunizing for your child, along with trusted sources where parents can get more information:

 

1.) The diseases we can prevent through immunization are dangerous and sometimes deadly.  

The 14 different diseases that we can now prevent through vaccination had once injured or killed thousands of children in the U.S. each year. Today, we may hardly ever see these diseases, but the fact remains that these diseases still exist and can be extremely dangerous, especially to children.

Take polio as an example. Polio was once America’s most feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country.  Thanks to vaccination, the U.S. has been polio-free since 1979.  But small pockets of polio still exist in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the threat to your child may just be a plane ride away.  (Read Judith’s polio story.)

There are lots of other vaccine preventable diseases that we see more frequently here in the U.S., such as flu, measles and pertussis.  So far during the flu season, over 150 children have died from flu.  And in the past few years, we’ve seen a resurgence of measles.  Back in 2014, there was an outbreak involving 667 cases of measles in 27 states. Another large multi-state outbreak linked to an amusement park in California occured in 2015 involved 147 people. And more recently, an outbreak in MN resulted in the hospitalizations of a dozen children.

Learn more about the 14 different diseases we can prevent through vaccination with this interactive eBook which includes a description of each disease, its symptoms and an explanation of how the disease can be prevented through immunization. 

eBookImageNAPNAP

2.) Vaccines are safe and effective. 

Vaccines today are the safest they’ve ever been. Of course, parents are bound to hear stories from people on the internet claiming that their children were injured by vaccines.  Since it is extremely difficult to validate these stories, parents should rely on evidence based information when making conclusions about the safety of vaccines.

It is important to acknowledge that vaccines do come with a risk of side effects. However, since vaccines are administered to almost every child in the U.S., they undergo an enormous amount of safety surveillance and scrutiny by scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals.  The most common vaccine side effects are minor and include redness or swelling at the site of the shot, which is minimal compared to the pain, discomfort, and risk of injury and death from the diseases these vaccines prevent. Serious side effects following vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, can happen, but are extremely rare.

Considering the dangers of the diseases we are trying to prevent, the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the minimal risk of side effects.

This video, as well as others available on our Vaccinate Your Family Facebook page, address some of the most common safety questions parents have about vaccines.  

 

3.) Childhood vaccines contribute to the community immunity that helps keep everyone free from disease.  

Some vaccines are not administered until a child is 2, 6 or 12 months of age.  Some vaccines even require multiple doses before a child receives optimal immunity.  Prior to being fully vaccinated, these infants remain vulnerable to diseases that can be particularly dangerous for infants.   Read more…

Flu Vaccine Benefits Go Beyond Effectiveness of One Strain

December 11, 2017 3 comments
LJ TanGuest post by Litjen (LJ) Tan, MS, PhD; co-chair and co-founder of the National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit.

 

There seems to be a lot of speculation recently about how effective the influenza (flu) vaccine will be at preventing cases of influenza this season.

We have heard suggestions that the vaccine may only be 10% effective against flu this year, that there may be mismatches in the vaccine compared to the influenza strains that are circulating, and thus, that the vaccine is not worth getting.

To address these concerns I will start with a basic explanation of flu and flu vaccines, and then discuss the factors that play into vaccine effectiveness.

First, let me say that influenza is a serious respiratory infection that is responsible for about 30% of all the respiratory infections during the winter season. When I say serious, I mean that flu can keep you down for a week or more, and you will feel completely miserable. Additionally, each year thousands of people of all ages die from flu in the U.S.; it can be very dangerous. So, that office colleague who said that he was out with the flu yesterday very likely did not have influenza. Not fully understanding the dangers of flu is why some people fail to see the value of flu prevention.  

Flu is caused by multiple strains of influenza viruses that circulate during the winter season; specifically, we have influenza type A (with the H3N2 and H1N1 strains) and influenza type B (there are two type B strains that can circulate and currently 90% appear to be the Yamagata lineage, but since it is still so early in the season and sample sizes are small, this data point may not be statistically significant). Because these strains of flu viruses can switch every season in terms of dominance, and can also mutate, manufacturers need to develop a new influenza vaccine every year and people need to be re-vaccinated each year.

To be clear, the vaccine development process is the same every year, it is just that the starting, or “seed”, vaccine virus that we immunize against has to be identified before it can be used to develop our country’s annual vaccines.

When that seed virus is identified, it is then amplified (or passaged) to develop more seed virus. Then that seed virus is further amplified to create the large quantities of vaccine virus that we ultimately need to prepare an adequate supply of vaccines to protect our population. That amplification of the seed virus, and the making of large amounts of vaccine virus, can occur in eggs, which is the more traditional way, or it can also occur in cell cultures. So there needs to be four seed viruses developed and amplified to create influenza vaccines – an H3N2 seed, an H1N1 seed, and the two B seed viruses.

So why do we keep hearing people say that this year’s flu vaccine may only be 10% effective? Where did that suggestion come from?

When we say that a flu vaccine is 10% effective, what we usually mean is that it was effective in preventing 10% of cases of influenza in those who were vaccinated. This 10% number that you may have heard is actually a data point from Australia, and it’s not against all strains of flu, but specifically against the H3N2 strain that dominated the southern hemisphere this past flu season. If you look at the Australian data for all influenza, the vaccine effectiveness goes up to 33%. Agreed, that’s not great for Australians (although, it’s still better than no protection), but is looking at the Australian data truly reflective of what might happen in the US?

It’s unlikely, and here’s why. Read more…

Vaccine Hesitancy Often Tied to Moral Foundations of Liberty and Purity

December 5, 2017 Leave a comment

What's daddy doing?

We often try to overcome vaccine hesitancy with education, hoping that the scientific evidence will be enough to change people’s minds.  The hope is that if we can just provide people with the facts about the dangers of diseases, and the benefits of vaccines, than they will be encouraged to vaccinate.  But research shows that it’s not that easy, and this may not even be the right approach.

Today, Washington Post reporter, Lena Sun, published an article that explains that vaccine hesitancy is not just an issue of education.  Recent behavioral research suggests that there is often a moral difference between people who accept vaccines and people who refuse them.  The point is that people don’t make decisions based solely on fact.  Rather, parents who are most reluctant to vaccinate appear to be strongly concerned with two powerful moral values that influence their attitudes and judgments: individual liberty and purity.

In this framework, liberty is associated with belief in personal responsibility, freedom, property rights and resistance to state involvement in citizens’ lives, while concerns about purity focus on boundaries and protection from contamination.

One new study out of Emory University, published recently in Nature Human Behaviour, used a social psychology theory known as Moral Foundations Theory to determine the underlying moral values most strongly associated with vaccine-hesitant parents. They assessed the parents’ level of vaccination hesitancy and explored how important different moral values were to them when deciding if something was right or wrong. Their findings correspond with the reasons many vaccine-hesitant parents give for delaying or refusing some vaccines.

Another group of researchers out of Loyola University in Chicago were able to validate these finding, but then went one step further.  They found that purity and liberty values also seem to influence the belief in false or misleading statements that often appear on websites that adamantly oppose vaccines.

In another study recently published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, researchers at the University of Amsterdam and University of Kent explored science skepticism as it relates to various issues such as climate change, vaccination and genetic modification in food.  They determined that “religiosity”, as well as concerns about moral purity, were also a common predictor of vaccine skepticism.

The insight that we get from this type of behavioral research can certainly help us better understand those who are vaccine hesitant.  If we can take the moral foundation concerns and incorporate them into our messaging, we may be able to persuade parents that vaccines do fulfill their desire to maintain both liberty and purity.

As an example, to address the purity concerns, one suggested intervention may be to explain that vaccinating is a way of  boosting a child’s natural defenses against disease and keeping the child “pure of infections”.  Whereas a liberty-oriented message might suggest that vaccines can help parents to take personal control of a child’s health so that they are free to live a happy and healthy life.

While such messaging has yet to be tested, these studies, and others like this, are critical to helping us develop more effective communication, and should be a consideration for all of us who engage with vaccine hesitant parents in the doctor’s office, on the internet or at the playground.

 

In “The Pathological Optimist” Wakefield Profits From False Hope and a Disproved Autism-MMR Hypothesis

October 23, 2017 33 comments

This guest post has been written by Every Child By Two Board Member, Dr. Paul A. Offit, who is a professor of pediatrics and Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. 

The Pathological Optimist, which had its theatrical release on September 29, 2017, is a movie about Andrew Wakefield, the British doctor who claimed that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine caused autism.

Although much has been written about this man and his discredited hypothesis, one question remains unanswered. And it’s this question that makes Andrew Wakefield such an interesting character study.

Among scientists, Andrew Wakefield is unique.  He’s not unique because his explanation for why MMR caused autism was nonsensical. (MMR vaccine doesn’t overwhelm the immune system; measles vaccine virus doesn’t damage the intestine; and brain-damaging toxins don’t then enter the body and cause autism). And he’s not unique because 17 studies performed in seven countries on three continents showed that those who received MMR weren’t at greater risk of autism. (Four thousand studies are published in the scientific and medical literature every day; not surprisingly, false claims are published all the time). He’s not unique because the Lancet, the medical journal that published his original paper, retracted it when the editor learned that Wakefield had misrepresented biological and clinical data. (Researchers who falsify data are an occasional problem in science—a human endeavor). And he’s not unique because several of the families mentioned in his paper were in the midst of suing pharmaceutical companies, essentially laundering their legal claims through a medical journal. (Conflicts of interest occasionally confound medical research). Finally, he’s not unique because his misrepresentations and falsehoods caused him to lose his medical license. (Every year some doctors lose their license to practice medicine).

No. What makes Andrew Wakefield unique is that unlike many of the discredited, defrocked, and humiliated scientists who have preceded him, he continues to insist that he is right and that the rest of the world is wrong.

The question is: Why? In The Pathological Optimist, executive producer Miranda Bailey pulls back the curtain.

Between 2011 and 2016, Bailey, who is best known for her work in Swiss Army Man, The Diary of a Teenage Girl, and Norman, embedded herself in Andrew Wakefield’s life. Bailey is no novice. She’s spent a lot of time working around people who act for a living. She’s not easily fooled. And she’s not fooled here.

Throughout the movie, Andrew Wakefield’s grandiosity, his exaggerated sense of self-importance, his fantasies of brilliance, his sense of entitlement, his need for constant admiration, and his arrogance are on full display.

The Pathological Optimist follows Wakefield on what appears to be a cross-country, money-seeking tour targeting parents of children with autism. Wakefield isn’t raising money for research on autism’s causes or cures. And he isn’t raising money to promote better services or better educational tools for children with the disorder. Rather, he’s raising money for himself; specifically, to pay legal fees for his lawsuits against Brian Deer, the investigative journalist who had exposed Wakefield’s falsifications in the Lancet paper, and Fiona Godlee, the editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal who had called Wakefield’s paper fraudulent and challenged the Lancet to retract it.

Wakefield is out to restore his reputation. And he’s taking advantage of vulnerable parents who believe in him to do it. For Andrew Wakefield, it’s all about Andrew Wakefield.

Read more…

Five Things I’ve Learned About Vaccines Through 21 Years of Parenting

April 24, 2017 35 comments

niiw-blog-a-thon-badgeI gave birth to five children in the span of nine years. My oldest daughter will soon be 21.  My youngest, 12.  Over the years, I’ve learned a few things about childhood illnesses and infectious diseases.  Like most parents, I’ve received plenty of unsolicited advice about how to care for my children and how to keep them healthy.  However, when I make health decision for my children, I rely on evidence based research and credible information from reputable sources.

That is why I agreed to partner with Every Child By Two (ECBT) as the editor and primary contributor to this Shot of Prevention blog.  Seven years ago, when we started this blog, parents seeking vaccine information on the internet often encountered a web of lies, deception, misinformation and fear mongering. Today, Shot of Prevention is one of many blogs that provide parents with evidence based information to help them make informed immunization decisions for their families.

Today, in recognition of National Infant Immunization Week, I’m sharing five of the most important things I’ve learned about vaccines through my journey as a parent and immunization blogger and it begins with science and it ends with action.

1.) Don’t Let Your Emotions Cloud Your Scientific Judgment.

Visit any online parenting forum and there are fewer topics that can get as heated and emotional as vaccines.  The majority of these conversations illicit fear and sympathy, and you’ll often hear parents say that they had to trust their gut or rely on their parental instinct. While we can’t deny our emotions, when it comes to vaccines we must not let emotions cloud our scientific judgment. Instead, we must look to peer-reviewed research and sound science to make educated and informed immunization decisions for our children.

When we do that, we realize that vaccines are some of the most rigorously tested medical interventions available today. And they should be because they are administered to almost every healthy child born in the U.S.  The four different surveillance systems we have in the U.S. serve as back-up systems to ensure the ongoing safety of vaccines.

178_NFID_Vaccine_Safety_infograms_2_FINAL

While it’s true that no medical intervention comes without risk, the chances that your child will suffer a serious adverse reaction from a vaccine are documented to be less than one in a million.

When you compare that risk to the risk of injury or death from the diseases that we prevent, vaccines win the benefit/risk ratio hands down.  So, brush up on your science and take the time to understand how vaccines work.

Listen to immunization experts address some of the most frequently asked questions about vaccines in these Q&A videos available on our Vaccinate Your Family Facebook page here and our YouTube channel here.  You can also check out these other resources to learn more:
Immunity and Vaccines Explained; video from PBS, NOVA 
How Vaccines Work; video embedded on Immunize For Good website 
Vaccines: Calling the Shots; Aired on PBS, NOVA 
Ensuring the Safety of Vaccines in the U.S.; PDF document from the CDC 
The Journey of Your Child’s Vaccine; Infographic from the CDC 
Vaccine Ingredients Frequently Asked Questions; Healthy Children, AAP
Vaccine Education Center Website; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 

2.) Appreciate Vaccines For Their Life-Saving Quality.  

Thankfully, science is advancing and newer, safer vaccines are enabling us to prevent more needless suffering, hospitalizations & death. However, it’s not uncommon for parents to question why their child may need so many shots.

NIIW_Twitter-Storm_Hosp 2

Admittedly, the method of administering vaccines can be painful at times.  I’m beginning to think that the reason parents are concerned about the number of vaccines their children receive is because it’s even painful for parents to watch their child suffer from the discomfort of a needle. And worst yet, there are often multiple shots at each visit during those first two years of life.  If vaccines were administered orally, through an adhesive patch, or through a way that didn’t involve pain, I believe parents might not have nearly as much concern.

Unfortunately, one of the hardest things to accept as a parent is watching your child suffer from things you can’t prevent.  But the reality is that with vaccines, you are preventing something, even if you may never see that disease which you are preventing. The reality is that some brief discomfort, a few pricks of a needle and even a mild fever, swelling, rash or big crocodile tears are far better than suffering from any one of the 14 different diseases we can now safely prevent through childhood immunizations.

Since we are privileged to live in a country where we have such easy access to vaccines, parents don’t often see just how dangerous vaccine preventable diseases can be. And while we may not have ever seen polio in our lifetime, we must never forget the fear that parents experienced before a vaccine was available. Sadly, most parents in the U.S. probably don’t even realize that polio still exists in other countries and that globally, measles remains one of the top five killers of kids under the age of five.

Print

In fact, our country is currently battling yet another measles outbreak in Minnesota. This outbreak appears to be direct result of anti-vaccine advocates wrongfully convincing members of the Somali community not to vaccinate due to the dispelled myth that vaccines were linked to autism.  Now unvaccinated children are being hospitalized with measles and public health professionals are hard at work trying to contain the spread of this extremely infectious disease.

Perhaps if parents were to learn more about the dangers of the diseases that vaccines help to prevent, they may feel less anxious about the shots their child is recommended to receive.  Screen Shot 2017-04-24 at 9.16.16 AM.png

To learn about the 14 different diseases that we can prevent with today’s childhood immunization center, check out our Every Child By Two’s Childhood Vaccine Preventable Disease eBook.

Read more…

John Stone and the “Best of Age of Autism”: Wrong About Everything

February 23, 2017 2 comments
JoelHarrisonEvery Child By Two is pleased to launch another article in their Expert Commentary series featuring guest writer Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, a retired epidemiologist who has worked in the areas of preventive medicine, infectious diseases, medical outcomes research, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Today we will feature Dr. Harrison’s latest paper, John Stone and the “Best of Age of Autism”: Just Plain Wrong About Everything.


by Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

John Stone is listed as the UK Editor for Age of Autism, a daily web newspaper. He is author of numerous articles posted on Age of Autism as well as an active writer of comments, not only to Age of Autism articles; but to articles on other websites, including this blog I have written a number of commentaries on John Stone and his antivaccinationist views, but after seeing Stone’s article “Paul Offit’s 10,000 Vaccines and the Milgram Experiment, ” now being posted for the fourth time, I just had to get out my pen and pad once more.

In his article, Stone discusses four topics:

  1. Using the Milgram Experiment as an explanation for why doctor’s vaccinate
  2. Profits made on the manufacture and sale of vaccines
  3. Paul Offit’s oft out-of-context quoted by antivaccinationists “10,000 vaccines”
  4. The Cutter Incident

In my paper, John Stone and the “Best of Age of Autism”: Just Plain Wrong About Everything, I show that not one of his claims has any validity; but, rather, clearly display many of the flaws in Stone’s thinking as well as other antivaccinationists, including: poor scholarship, a deficient understanding of scientific thinking and methodology, deficient knowledge of immunology, microbiology, and epidemiology, deficient understanding of basic economics, the illogic of false analogies, as well as a lack of common sense, plus a blatant hypocrisy.

Stone’s knowledge of the Milgram Experiments appears to be based only on one article he found in a popular magazine and on a movie clip. Based on his writings on the Milgram Experiments, it does not appear that he even bothered to read the original articles, and isn’t aware that it wasn’t the Milgram Experiment; but Experiments. If he had accessed the original articles, he would have found the study procedures and results to be quite different from the description in Psychology Today. Different enough to make him guilty of the False Analogy Fallacy, a logical fallacy that occurs when applying facts from one situation to a substantially different situation, precluding the ability to draw a logical conclusion (Rational Wiki. “False analogy”)

Stone repeats the antivaccinationists’ trope of 10,000 vaccines, ignoring context and a clear display of lack of common sense. As an analogy, imagine a 15 – 20 minute lecture or 2,500 word article about research into potentially almost limitless energy. The last sentence states: “Our research indicates we could theoretically put 10,000 gallons of gasoline in your car tank.” The average gas tank holds probably up to 25 gallons. Given Stone’s lack of common sense, I assume he would take the 10,000 gallons literally. Most rational people would understand, even without context, that the 10,000 gallons did not refer to actual gallons of gasoline but to the energy/mileage equivalent. The physical impossibility of giving 10,000 vaccines at once to an infant or anyone together with the exponential leap from the current 17 vaccines, there not even being remotely so many microbes that vaccines would ever be developed for, says it all.

He continues to display faulty reasoning, actually a display of hypocrisy, when attacking the profit motive behind vaccines. He and other antivaccinationists seem to have NO problem with the purveyors of complementary and alternative medicines making profits, so it seems that the making of profits is only unacceptable when selling something Stone and other antivaccinationists disagree with. Of course doctors get paid for giving vaccinations. Should they give them for free? As a further display of his ignorance, Stone doesn’t seem to be aware that the profit margin for vaccines pales in comparison to other pharmaceuticals and that the amount doctors make on administering vaccines is, at best, marginal. In fact, some doctors take a loss on vaccinations.

Finally, Stone goes back 60 years in time to the Cutter Incident where approximately 200 people, mainly children, were paralyzed from an inadequately killed vaccine and thousands more exposed. Stone is either unaware of or intentionally ignores that this incident led to ever-increasing safety regulations and surveillance of vaccines. If one were to use Stone’s approach to medicine, since many beneficial medicines and interventions had problems years ago, much of modern medicine would be rejected. In fact, historically, one can find problems with much of modern technology. Is Stone’s approach even rational? And, again, Age of Autism chooses to repost Stone’s article as an example of “The Best of Age of Autism.”

And there you have John Stone and the Best of Age of Autism in a NUTshell!

Read Dr. Harrison’s full article, John Stone and the “Best of Age of Autism”: Just Plain Wrong About Everything, click here.  

Please note: The opinions in this article reflect the views of the author who is not an employee of Every Child By Two and do not necessarily reflect the views of Every Child By Two.  Dr. Harrison volunteers his time to provide in-depth, well-researched analysis of articles which ultimately make false claims about the safety of vaccines.  His articles are summarized here on Shot of Prevention with links to the full response on the Every Child By Two website.