SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
People's willingness to use a Zika vaccine when it's available will be influenced by how they weigh the risks associated with the disease and the vaccine, but also by their misconceptions about other vaccines, a new study has found.
While a Zika vaccine is in development, the study by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania examined factors that will affect the eventual acceptance or rejection of such a vaccine.
The study, published in the Journal of Public Health, found that people's erroneous beliefs about an association between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism were a predictor of people's lessened intention to get a Zika vaccine. The study also found that people's perceptions of the severity of the Zika virus as well as their general belief in the power of science to solve problems increased their intention to get the vaccine.
"When a new disease arises, people who lack understanding of the new threat may extrapolate from their knowledge of other diseases," said Yotam Ophir, a Ph.D. candidate at Penn's Annenberg School for Communication who co-authored the study with APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson. "We found that the misbelief about the MMR vaccine's association with autism was more influential on the decision of whether to get vaccinated for Zika than even perceptions of Zika itself, which is worrisome, especially in light of the persistence of that misinformation."
[...] The bogus association between the MMR vaccine and autism has been disproven in numerous studies. However, the argument is still prominent among people who oppose vaccinations. "Scientists often look at the effect of misinformed beliefs about the MMR vaccine on people's intention to vaccinate children with the triple vaccine, but they don't as often look at the dangerous spillover effects that these misbeliefs can have," said Ophir, who will be joining APPC as a postdoctoral fellow.
He said that prior research has shown that it is very hard to completely debunk misinformation, such as the mistaken belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism, but the study results suggest that accurately communicating about the risks of Zika can help lessen the detrimental effects of the misbelief. "Even if we can't change what people think about the MMR vaccine, if we can give them an accurate picture of how vulnerable they are to a disease such as Zika, they can make a more informed decision about it," Ophir said.
(Score: 0, Troll) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 19 2018, @01:30AM (18 children)
As crazy as most alternative-beliefers are, they're correct that at one point, vaccines were able to cause autism-like conditions. Completely discrediting misinformation, just makes it more prevalent and creates more "anti-sciencers" (the same thing happened with the left-of-center groups against the right-of-center groups during the elections, see: Clinton's "deplorables"). At this point, it would make more sense to acknowledge that it did happen, and the the CDC + FDA are more liberal (the word for lenient, not the political associations) in their green-lighting of medical formulations. Some would say almost dangerously heedless, to which I would agree.
But I also think it's no surprise that people will drop everything they believe in to save themselves. Que, article.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @02:00AM
What they call science is also mostly NHST which is just confused application of statistics. It is really difficult to take these people seriously who just presume some truths about medical knowledge. Can they point to one prediction ever made more precise than whether a correlation will be positive or negative?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Monday March 19 2018, @02:44AM (5 children)
When? The original belief back in the 1970s was because vaccines were first given at or right before the point when it starts becoming clear that the child isn't developing typically, and the physical/emotional stress magnifies the perceptible differences as well as any sensory issues.
The thimerosal/mercury theory was never accurate in part because it's unable to pass the blood-brain barrier. People who have brain damage or mercury toxicity can have traits that appear similar to the autism stereotype, but it's only on the surface.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by julian on Monday March 19 2018, @03:05AM (2 children)
Not to mention that the mercury issue is wildly incompatible with our understanding of how the element behaves biologically. A small, one-time dose of a biologically unavailable form of mercury is not going to cause problems in the vast majority of people. Mercury is a naturally occurring element that has been present in the environment since life first emerged from non-living precursors. Contemporary species, including humans, can easily deal with levels typical for our environment. A year's worth of tuna sandwiches doses you with more mercury than you'll experience from a lifetime of vaccines--but no one claims tuna salad causes autism.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @03:27AM
Pretty sure injecting a years worth of tuna salad into a vein at once is going to cause some problems. Im only half kidding, your argument ignoring dose schedule and route of administration is worse than nothing.
Just talking about mercury toxicity isnt enough. Its how much entering the body in what way with what timecourse Due to the rudimentary state of medical knowledge it is dangerous to extrapolate beyond whatever precise conditions have been tested. You probably also need to take into account age, weight, diet, etc. The theory to do otherwise just isnt there.
(Score: 1) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 19 2018, @03:53AM
I must also chastise you for being an armchair scientist. The arguments are as lazy as the ones anti-vaxxers bring.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 19 2018, @03:43AM
[PMID: 24354891] TL;DR - Brain encephalopathy caused by mercury intoxication. The limitation here, is that it's only a statistical analysis of data, instead of a full fledged study. There was a great meta-analysis I came across a while ago, when I was discussing this topic, that really wrapped things up nicely. I can no longer find it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:57PM
It's not just about the mercury. Vaccines, in their current schedule, administration methods, manufacturing methods, regulation, liability, etc. are completely untrustworthy. It's clear that vaccines are severely damaging people's babies in various ways. It's not just brain damage. Instead of trying to cover for the drug dealers (and possibly worse motives) we could demand they be made much safer, instead of trying to find reasons why "anti-vaxxers" are stupid luddites. Propagandists like this whore of big pharma, APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson, should be terminated in a demonstrative fashion. This is what happens when you cover for people trying to disable babies.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @03:44AM (10 children)
You just pulled that out of your ass. There is no evidence that MMR causes autism. Zip. None. Nada.
Do vaccines occasionally have negative side effects, including death? You betcha! Are those frequent? Not even close.
And where is your actual data for this? What? You don't have any? Of course you don't Because it's a crock. Either you have no idea what you're blathering on about or you're just being s disingenuous prick.
You (as you seem to have a knack for it) are talking out of your ass again. Phew! that stinks!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Troll) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 19 2018, @04:12AM (8 children)
You are very aggressive for someone who has science on his side. See my previous link to a recent statistical analysis of ASD and thimersal.
I'm glad you asked. I am saddened that you are so bull-headed, but I will share with you, and the onlookers, what I have. My main research into this has been two-fold. The main branch has been researching the FDAs approval of certain generics (namely amphetamines) and the lack of true quality control. The second, lesser has been about the CDCs backtracking.
The second point is very small, and all I can say is that the CDC denied having thimersal in its vaccines, before rescinding and adding that they no longer used thimersal. It's nothing on its own, but its not a good start.
The first, however, is more substantial. After scouring through the FDAs, very messy, database. I've found that one of the main generic's providers, AuroBindo (and the many shell companies it has), has had over 55 serious violations in the past 10 years, with no punishment dished out by the FDA. Not included in the 55, AuroBindo has had 11 major (higher than serious) violations of FDA regulations in the past year, resulting in 3 483 forms being handed to them. However, the FDA has no legal power. I can find no evidence of the FDA really doing anything about violators in any news publication or other. I've seen inklings of the FDA refusing to allow some manufacturers to sell in the USA, but those were inklings. Not full-fledged sources, nor could I validate them. In-fact, the FDA relies on the US justice system to hand out punishment. AuroBindo was dished out a price collusion civil complaint, by attorney generals that were notified by the FDA. Yet, after all of this, including violations of bioequivalency and proper safety and dosage testing, they're still allowed to operate on US soil.
This is also, including, that the FDA does not publish the bioequivalency studies from said companies. I have also filed a Freedom of Information request with the FDA to get access to the studies AuroBindo conducted (yes, companies do the studies on their own drugs, not the FDA. Surely, you must see the problem here?), but I have been given the run-around. Despite my continued pursuance, I'm not hopeful. The draft guidance for amphetamine generic equivalency is tepid, to say the least. The studies for instant release amphetamine salts can be waived to only in vitro testing (instead of the normal fasted and fed observations on living people). The dissolution tests for amphetamine look solid, as far as I can tell. However, there is an itch in my mind after reading the dissolution profiles on amphetamine salts in the intestine being different than ones done in a simple solute matrix. The studies the FDA linked were incorrect, in that they didn't mention amphetamine or its solubility at all. I tracked down the right studies and notified them. However, this doesn't change that there is a chance amphetamine is a Case I under BCS, instead of Case III (the higher case, means that waivers are easier to obtain). I will be more than happy to provide the sources for any of these, but please make your request coherent and specific. I will not track down "every single study on amphetamine's bioequivalence."
I don't know why you foe'ed me. I also don't know why you post these things, as they're neither: funny, informative, interesting, or new. If I had mod capability, I would put you down as a troll, but I will give you the benefit of doubt.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @04:45AM (4 children)
Links to "cited" data?
Copies of FOIA requests?
All I see here are claims unsupported by data and innuendo.
You made statements:
The first is unsupported by any data I've seen (this is not said data, but gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#Safety). [wikipedia.org]
The second is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and, I'd like to see the data for myself, rather than taking your word for it.
What's more, your characterization of the FDA's testing methods do have some factual basis, in that the drug studies submitted for drug approval are, in fact, done by the manufacturers themselves. What's more, the review process for those studies, while performed in-house by the FDA, are generally underwritten by those manufacturers.
That's not some big secret, nor has it, AFAICT, generally had a negative effect (as you imply) on the safety of approved drugs.
In fact, while there have certainly been issues with that process at times, they have proven, with few exceptions, remarkably robust WRT safety.
I'm not sure what bug you have up your ass about the FDA and CDC, but your misrepresentations cause me to think you're some sort of crank.
So let's see that data (links to the DB's you mention would be a good start) and the "runaround" with respect to the "FOIA requests" you claim to have filed.
Until then, I stand by my initial assessment: You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Troll) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 19 2018, @05:43AM (3 children)
Point me to the data you want. Specifics, see my last point "I will be more than happy to provide the sources for any of these, but please make your request coherent and specific. I will not track down "every single study on amphetamine's bioequivalence.""
>FOIA copy
Absolutely not.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#Safety).
This is not a source. This is a lazy umbrella for independent research and I won't read through it all. For autism-to-thimersol analysis, see the other research I posted: [PMID: 24354891]
>The second is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and, I'd like to see the data for myself, rather than taking your word for it.
Again, see #1.
>That's not some big secret, nor has it, AFAICT, generally had a negative effect (as you imply) on the safety of approved drugs.
Observations: 1A, 1B, 1E, 2C (specifically related to particle excursions -- these are the negative effects under Observation 2), 3A, 5D, 9A, 9B[1] -- for reported complaints. The rest will be harder to find, because the FDA does not report manufacturer in its incidence reports.
>In fact, while there have certainly been issues with that process at times, they have proven, with few exceptions, remarkably robust WRT safety.
Are you using WRT in some uncommon fashion? It's not applicable to anything we discussed, and as always, sources required for your claim that the FDA process is proven, and with few exceptions, robust towards safety. A lack of contrary evidence is not evidence.
As for the rest, make your requests succinct. As much as I would like to educate you on this topic, I am not so devoid of things to do that I would hunt down and compend an encyclopaedia for yours.
[1]https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM552668.pdf
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @06:22AM (1 child)
You provide a reference to a paywalled paper [sciencedirect.com] (which, given the state of scientific publishing isn't surprising), and the abstract is vague in the extreme. As such, I can't make much of what's there. Especially since other paywalled papers [sciencedirect.com] directly contradict the conclusions of the one you referenced.
Sadly, I have no access to either paper or the data upon which they were based. Do you? Care to share?
You also provide a link (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM552668.pdf) to site reports concerning a single manufacturer's operational issues. Where are all the others you've cited? I think the number was 55? And there's no reference to any actions that the FDA may or may not have taken in response to those (or any other issues). Shall I just take your word for it that no fines or other sanctions were levied?
I'd also point out that we're discussing the MMR vaccine, not amphetamines here, although there seemed to be compounds other than amphetamines (at least in my cursory scan through the poorly copied PDF) that were primarily at issue.
I'm sure you believe what you're going on about. And good for you! All the same, you haven't provided any factual support for your claims. Just disputed claims and a single, marginally relevant report which doesn't provide factual evidence of your claims.
Whatever. Carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Troll) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 19 2018, @06:46AM
My god man, what year is it? Let Me Sci-Hub That For You. I'm also very confused how you ended up at ScienceDirect from a PubMed number. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F2047-9158-2-25.pdf
>Where are all the others you've cited? I think the number was 55?
A one https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/CDERFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM556141.pdf A two https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/CDERFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM556141.pdf A three https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/CDERFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM577372.pdf And a four https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/CDERFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM557175.pdf
As for the 55, search https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm346077.htm for all references of "Auro."
>And there's no reference to any actions that the FDA may or may not have taken in response to those (or any other issues). Shall I just take your word for it that no fines or other sanctions were levied?
A bingo https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm256377.htm , a bongo https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/LawsEnforcedbyFDA/default.htm , and a bango https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/default.htm . And for the really skeptical, a killamanjaro: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/
The basic point connecting these four documents, straight from the horses mouth, is that the FDA doesn't enforce anything in the generics department. Read those very short excepts, and tell me what you believe the FDA would do if AuroBindo started putting arsenic in their generics.
>I'd also point out that we're discussing the MMR vaccine, not amphetamines here, although there seemed to be compounds other than amphetamines (at least in my cursory scan through the poorly copied PDF) that were primarily at issue.
My main man, my macho nacho, my triskilin taint, you are the one that keeps veering off course. Let me remind you of how we got here in the first place! I made a post laying out all the info I had, this is colloquially referred to as the "opening post." And in this post I voiced my complaints about the FDA. But wait, you egged your humble educator on, to provide more evidence of histh claims, and how he did! Yet, your responses, when met with data you cannot refute, has been to switch subjects! My, how the stubborn have fallen! Well, enough making jokes of you, fellow. AuroBindo is a manufacturer that produces generic amphetamines. In the same plants they produce generic amphetamines, they produce other generics! Very rivetting stuff, I know I know. However, these processees are not separate. One worker pissing in the batch of grandma's fentanyl, does not mean another will not take a dump in my precious amphetamines. In lay terms, if he's gone ahead and stolen your car, you best bet he took your keys too.
>Whatever. Carry on.
Tch tch tch. I see your energy has faded, once you've been met with some real resistance in you life, eh fellow? No matter, after a quick nap and a quick fap (which unfortunately with the state of today's pornos could not be "finished"), I am revitalized. Come, fellow, en garde. You fired your flintlock towards my head, and now you run like a coward when you spilled your gunpowder. Face me like a man, man!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @06:22AM
You provide a reference to a paywalled paper [sciencedirect.com] (which, given the state of scientific publishing isn't surprising), and the abstract is vague in the extreme. As such, I can't make much of what's there. Especially since other paywalled papers [sciencedirect.com] directly contradict the conclusions of the one you referenced.
Sadly, I have no access to either paper or the data upon which they were based. Do you? Care to share?
You also provide a link (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM552668.pdf) to site reports concerning a single manufacturer's operational issues. Where are all the others you've cited? I think the number was 55? And there's no reference to any actions that the FDA may or may not have taken in response to those (or any other issues). Shall I just take your word for it that no fines or other sanctions were levied?
I'd also point out that we're discussing the MMR vaccine, not amphetamines here, although there seemed to be compounds other than amphetamines (at least in my cursory scan through the poorly copied PDF) that were primarily at issue.
I'm sure you believe what you're going on about. And good for you! All the same, you haven't provided any factual support for your claims. Just disputed claims and a single, marginally relevant report which doesn't provide factual evidence of your claims.
Whatever. Carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @04:49AM
I just calls 'em like I sees 'em, Champ.
If you want to ignore the arguments I make and mod me 'troll' because you don't like how I express my disagreement with yours, that's your privilege. It doesn't make it true, but don't let little things like objective reality cloud your righteous outrage.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday March 19 2018, @09:43AM (1 child)
LOL. You are basically laying out my anti-vaxx position, which has always been one of the avaricious hell bound executives have nothing to gain by playing it safe with our bodies. That's just not the type of Capitalism (with the Capital C) were into around here :)
I'm perfectly okay with some vaccine for Zika, or whatever other bullshit like the Flu, etc. Just as long as as two-hundred million other people have done it first. Literally. I'm not taking the gen1 shit, or the gen2 shit. I want to wait long enough, that statistically, the avarice of the executives cannot be hidden anymore. Especially, if the vaccine is American.
Basically the problem isn't science. It's trust in people. The scientifically inclined can say whatever the fuck they want, but science does have a huge integrity problem, and about reproducible results. Even when the science is good..... you can't trust the fucking regulators either.
Trust. In. People.
That's what has been shattered, and you don't fix that with fancy education and lessons about logic. Only cold hard reality and people taking responsbility and accepting consequences does that. Last time I checked, Big Pharma was on the too-big-to-fail-or-face-justice list. DuPont knowingly fucked with us for decades knowing the truth, but literally invented junk science and the endless arguments, and literally began the argument about whether we could financially afford the truth (Climate Change).
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @07:08PM
exactly! people who try to act like we just hate science or the idea of vaccines in general are either stupid or liars. if these degenerate scum could do anything right, i'd be the first to line up for my precious shot (or to shoot my babies up with some good ole herd immunity right after they get butchered out of mom who was pumped full of pitocin by some goddamn goblin of a doctor).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @12:26PM
The medical literature is like the bible, I assure you that some evidence exists to support whatever idea you can imagine. Saying stuff like this just reavels you are an outsider.