Health Risk Déjà Vu: Corporations, Chemicals & Fabricated Advocates
CONTEST: Write the 125,000th Autism Tweet from @TannersDad

Dachel Media Review: Blue Days Ahead, Challening Parents Healthcare Rights

Online newsBy Anne Dachel

Read Anne's commentary and view the links after the jump.

Mar 3, 2014, Forbes: Antivax Parents Dig In Heels At Pro Vaccine Messaging

Mar 3, 2014, CBS News:: Pro-vaccination efforts, debunking autism myths may be scaring wary parents from shots

Mar 3. 2014, Al Jazeera America: Measles outbreaks spark fears of return of a disease


A new study reported in Pediatrics has found that when parents already eye vaccines askance, information setting the record straight only makes them dig in their heels more. Indeed, according to reporting from Jonel Aleccia at NBC News:

Information debunking discredited claims of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine successfully corrected parents' views, but it didn't budge their intent to vaccinate, the study found. In fact, among those with least favorable views of vaccines, the chance that they would vaccinate future kids fell from 70 percent to 45 percent.


As usual, parents are just supposed to accept autism as not connected to vaccinations at the same time no one can tell us why so many kids have the disorder.  I posted comments.

CBS News

Vaccines are doing their jobs preventing disease and death, and even bringing down societal costs, according to a new study in Pediatrics.

But another study, published in the same journal issue, found that public health campaigns touting vaccines' effectiveness and debunking the links between autism and other health risks might actually be backfiring, and convincing parents to skip the shots for their kids.

Health officials can't understand why parents don't believe their vaccine safety messages.  They are so removed from reality it's hard to know where to begin. 


Dr. Schuchat and everyone else in public health need a dose of reality. Our children are increasingly disabled and chronically ill. Soaring rates of autism, learning disorders, diabetes, seizure disorder, sleep disorders, bowel disease and more afflict our kids. Tens of thousands of parents report that their kids were fine until they were vaccinated. Suddenly they changed. They developed things like chronic diarrhea, seizures, many stopped talking, lost learned skills and ended up with an autism diagnosis. Doctors can't explain this, but they're sure it's not because of battery of vaccinations the child had received previously. And they have lots of studies, all tied to the vaccine industry, to prove it.

The public tends to be suspicious of safety claims from the agency that runs the vaccine program. Why should we trust them when they say their vaccines aren't harming children?

The CDC approves, recommends, and vigorously promotes vaccines. It's also the place where countless individuals have conflict of interest waivers because of their direct financial ties to the industry they're supposed to be overseeing. The last head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, a long time denier of any link between vaccines and autism, is now head of the vaccine division at Merck.

Al Jazeera America 

Experts say the return of measles and, to a lesser degree, mumps is due to a decade-long backlash against common vaccines. Pockets of underimmunized children have left an unknown number of communities vulnerable to the virus. . . .

One of the driving fears about getting their offspring vaccinated is the link that some parents have made between inoculations and autism. Jessica Plought, of Charleston, S.C., is one such parent. In August 2011, her cheerful daughter Sarah, then 2 years old, stopped talking. Soon she no longer recognized her grandparents and had no interest in books or blocks. Now 4, she is still in diapers.

Plought said her daughter's decline followed a severe fever and rash that began with a slate of inoculation against a half-dozen diseases. She blames Sarah's autism on the vaccines, many of which include weak strains of live viruses. "They say 'infect to protect,' but I don't buy that theory," said Plought. "They can't tell me vaccines are safe." . . .

Fear of the measles vaccine and its former preservative thiomersal was stoked in 1998 when physician Andrew Wakefield published a now-discredited research paper in the prestigious British medical review The Lancet. Investigators later found that many of his subjects were referred by an insurance company trying to build a class-action lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.

Independent studies by international medical societies, public health offices and scientific researchers have vigorously debunked his claims. Sixteen years after the Wakefield scandal, long-term studies consistently find, as does the CDC, that vaccines "are not associated with autism spectrum disorders."

The CDC is worried about the threat from "unvaccinated clusters." The same people WHO AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT A 2 PERCENT AUTISM RATE, are screaming about 53 people who got the measles.

There's no comment section here or else I'd inform Ms Pisik that the "preservative" is really untested, toxic mercury---AND THAT IT WAS NEVER IN THE MMR.

Pisik tells us about the terrible story of Sarah Plought's regression after vaccination, then says studies show no link.

No comment allowed here.



@Betty, it happens to be that all the people I know who feel the need to post on FB, happen to be people that espouse liberal views in all other areas in their lives. I'm sure there are plenty of conservative people who hate people who don't vaccinate, too--but, at least on Facebook, they are spending more time complaining about the President (than about people who don't vaccinate).

Betty Bona

@Beth - I sure hope it doesn't come down to liberals vs conservatives. I'm about as liberal as they come, or maybe I used to be. Now I can see that government is out of control. Does that make me a conservative or a libertarian? Oh no, an identity crisis! Some interesting and somewhat relevant research has been done on anthropomorphic climate change views (some by a person I know personally). He shows that Republicans continue to disbelieve the anthropomorphic aspects of climate change even when presented with scientific evidence. Democrats believe even more strongly that climate change is man made after being presented with scientific evidence. He is liberal himself and thinks that vaccines are safe. Like you, he believes that anti-vacciners are all republicans. The difference I see is that climate change is not life-changing the way autism is. Autism doesn't just affect republicans, and I see affected democrats (or those that know enough affected people) understanding the dangers of vaccines as well as republicans or libertarians.


From what I've seen, the most liberal people are the most staunch advocates of vaccines, and the quickest to rail against those who don't (going so far as to use profanity in their descriptions of people who don't vaccinate). The people with with more moderate views tend to be those with more moderate views in general (or, even to the more libertarian side of politics). Not at all surprised re: Mother Jones. Tolerance/liberality/etc. applies to everything except the questioning of vaccines. It seems very inconsistent, but that's the way it seems to be.

L Land

I heard the Forbes study on NPR. The book On Rumors published in 2009 discusses that when people are presented with evidence that is in opposition to their opinions they reject the evidence and become more firm believers in their original opinion. So, people who believe that vaccines are always good when presented with evidence of vaccine injury will likely reject the evidence of the vaccine injury and believe even more strongly in the perfection of vaccines.

cia parker

You should see all the articles now on Mother Jones about the evils of not vaccinating. I thought it was a '70s magazine, all pro-environment, granola, and hippies. Au contraire, it's a bastion of pharma lobbyists!


Betty, you hit the nail on the head- they do look all 'Big Brother' and it isn't playing out well. I think it will just get uglier as people like Dorit Reiss and BCH keep pushing to prosecute or alienate parents.

Betty Bona

Studies aimed at optimizing "vaccine messaging" make the government/academia/pharma industry look like Big Brother. I went to a lecture about "messaging" for the HPV vaccine, and the studies found that doctors should be sure to use the first name of the mother and of the daughter. Personalize their propaganda. These studies are such a waste of research dollars!

@Kristina - I think Forbes is so heavily involved because Wall Street will be devastated when the full extent of vaccine fraud, over-medication fraud, and GMO fraud is truly recognized. They want to save Wall Street. The same forces are active in insuring that there are no public research dollars available (like the sequester). When there are no dollars available, researchers are at the mercy of pharma.


You should check out the article on Mother Jones on how anti-vaxxers are dangerous. Than check out the comments. How can people be so ignorant and continue to believe the rubbish put of by the vaccine industry & CDC by a robo-journalist. It's no coincidence that there is a plethora of articles aimed at the anti-vaccine group since Dr. Brian Hooker went public with his results regarding the CDC suppressing the information on the danger of mercury in vaccines in the Danish Study. They are distracting from the fat that the CDC lied to the congress and the public about mercury in vaccines. The masses are so manipulated and indoctrinated they will not look beyond what some unknown journalist writes in a hit piece.

Laura Hayes

My favorite comment of yours tonight, Anne, is what you said about our "health" officials (pains me to call them that, b/c they seem not to care a whit about our health, just their wealth, and keeping the safety and efficacy myths about vaccines alive and well):

"They are so removed from reality it's hard to know where to begin."

Well said.


Why are there so many articles all the time in Forbes about the evils of not vaccinating? I always thought it was a financial and investing magazine.


Oh if only forbes would just ask me why. I'd be happy to tell them why. How much money was wasted on this study instead of studying vaccinated Vs, Unvaccinated populations?


'bringing down societal costs?' How would we know that? There are no good physiological studies proving safety and therefore the true societal costs (possibly reflecting learning/ beahavioral challenges, special Ed and health problems) would be unknown. In fact is is possible it is costing us more.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)