Day: June 6, 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The number of parents questioning the wisdom of the currently recommended schedule is up and corroboration is easy to find.1 An article in the journal Pediatrics in August 2016 reported that the number of pediatricians encountering parents who either question vaccine safety or refuse one or more vaccines or want to use an alternative vaccination schedule for their children increased from just under 75 percent in 2006 to 87 percent by 2013.2
A study from the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics3 reported that the primary reasons given for vaccine hesitancy or refusal of one or more recommended vaccinations include
concern over pain associated with multiple injections (44 percent); too
many vaccines given 
at one time (34 percent); the possibility of
vaccines causing autism or other learning disabilities (26 percent, down
from the 2006 survey); concern that there is an association between
vaccines and chronic illnesses (13.5 percent); and lack of adequate
safety studies (13.2 percent). Some parents also are questioning whether so many childhood vaccines
are necessary (up from the 2006 survey), and whether experience with
natural disease is better for children than repeated artificial
manipulation of the immune system by vaccinations.
Overall, fewer parents are focused specifically on fears of autism
compared with a few years ago. Instead, parents are expressing broader
concerns such as the potential effects on immune system function,
worries over how the injection of so many toxins may affect their
child’s well-being long term, lack of adequate vaccine safety studies,
and protection of parental rights to make informed medical decisions for
their children.4
The general consensus that vaccine hesitancy is on the rise has spawned a host articles in the medical literature and in the media about how
to “fix the problem.” Many doctors and and health care professionals
have serious questions themselves and agree that vaccine decisions
should be left to parents, but a far more common position holds that
parents should not have the final say on vaccine decisions and that it
is a societal obligation for doctors to change the mind of anyone who
disagrees with current vaccine recommendations. A quick Google search of
“vaccine hesitancy” turns up mountains of advice on how to persuade
so-called “misinformed” or “confused” parents to change their minds and
get with the program.
From tired old references to the “debunked” notion that vaccines
cause autism to condescending suggestions for educating, incentivizing
or coercing reluctant patients or parents to accept all recommended
vaccines, it can be intimidating to even admit to having questions about
vaccination. It may help to know what to expect and to recognize
pressure strategies that may be used.

Categorizing the Vaccine Hesitant

One of the first things recommended for doctors faced with vaccine
hesitant parents (a term reportedly coined to “depolarize the ‘pro’
versus ‘anti’ vaccination alignment and to express the spectrum of
parental attitudes toward vaccines5)
is to categorize the parents by degree of and reasons for reluctance,
in order to determine the best strategy for changing hesitancy to
compliance.
Scott Halperin, MD, is credited with identifying the “five types of
vaccine-hesitant parents,” classified as follows in a blog post for
“National Immunization Awareness Month”6:

1. “Uninformed But Want To Become Informed” parents
   are defined as those who turn to their trusted physician because of his
   or her expertise and want to be reassured and educated about the safety
   and effectiveness of vaccines. It is suggested that these parents can be
   educated about the science in simple terms without using too much
   jargon, and that sharing personal experiences—such as the fact that the
   physician’s own children are fully vaccinated—may help.
2. “Misinformed But Correctable” describes parents
   considered to have been fooled by exploitative, anonymous online
   reporting that plays into their worst fears, despite the “strength of
   the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective.” For these parents,
   it is suggested that sound data de-bunking the myths they’ve bought into
   should do the trick. It is also said to be important to both
   acknowledge the risks and limitations of vaccines and to respect their
   parental authority… but to very clearly stress the “strong benefits of
   vaccines.”
3. “Well-Read and Open-Minded” parents are described
   as having absorbed so much information on both sides of the issue that
   they come to their physician with many questions and concerns. These
   parents require help in evaluating the information they have heard. It
   is recommended that the doctor have sound data and appropriate websites
   to refer them to, in order to refute any “misinformation” they have
   received. A reassuring follow-up phone call is also said to be helpful.
4. “Convinced and Content” parents are categorized as
   those who are “convinced vaccines are bad, but come to [their physician]
   to prove they are open-minded.” The strategy to deal with such parents
   is described as “acknowledging their concerns but strongly refuting them
   with scientific data.”
5. “Committed and Missionary” is the final category
   identified for vaccine questioners. These people are said to be
   “card-carrying anti-vaccine activists who try and convert you to their
   position.” Some of the suggestions for dealing with such parents include
   stressing the positive effects of vaccines, and making sure they
   understand the responsibilities and risks they are accepting if they
   choose not to vaccinate. Physicians are encouraged to “Be patient, as
   correcting anti-vaccine myths and changing parent attitudes does not
   happen overnight.”

Going Beyond Official Policy Education

If gentle persuasion and carefully scripted education are not enough
to convince parents to fully vaccinate their children, other means of
doing so have been identified by some doctors.
One ploy is referred to as “presumptive delivery,” in which the
physician begins by presenting vaccination as a requirement to prevent
disease rather than as an optional course of action.7
Similarly, a “strategy of inconvenience” is alleged to be pretty
effective. For example, when a step was added requiring Michigan parents
seeking a vaccine exemption to meet in person with a “county health
educator” before being granted the exemption, the number of requests
dropped by 35 percent in one year, and vaccination rates rose. Health
policy specialist Mark Largent said the idea was to make the “process
more burdensome,” adding that, “Moral claims and ideology don’t matter
as much when it’s inconvenient.”8
Appealing to a parent’s sense of societal obligation is another
tactic used frequently. Pediatrician Richard Lander, MD expressed a
common opinion when he said that it is important to help “people view
vaccines as protecting overall community health, similar to the way
other laws are designed to protect community health.”9
Dr. Lander further suggested that “If a parent decides not to give
vaccines, perhaps the insurance companies should charge them higher
premiums since their risk of preventable infections is higher; and maybe
if someone contracts a preventable illness from their child, the
parents should be financially responsible for the health care costs
involved. This would place more responsibility upon those parents and
really alert them to how their decision doesn’t only affect their
child.”9
Guilt and fear tactics are also said to be effective, as when a
physician asks, “Do you really want your child to have to suffer through
a disease you either had as a child or never had to have yourself?” or
plays up the risks of “vaccine preventable diseases” with photographs
and horror stories of children who became very ill or died from one of
those diseases.
Some physicians resort to denying
medical care to children if parents refuse to give their children all
federally recommended vaccines according to the CDC’s recommended
schedule.
If all else fails, offering candy is a suggested bribe for convincing
the truly intractable. No joke. Health officials in Ireland suggest
that uptake of the flu vaccine can be increased substantially among
nurses by offering chocolate or drawings for iPads to nurses who agree
to be vaccinated.10
Although the comments were roundly criticized for being patronizing and
condescending, they offer a telling glimpse into the way people who question the safety of vaccines are viewed by public health officials and the mainstream medical community.

References:

Alex Jones breaks down how the mainstream media funds itself by pushing dangerous pharmaceuticals on the American public.