DOCSLIB.ORG

To Get the Shot Or Not: Narratives, Rhetoric, and the Childhood Vaccination Crisis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To Get the Shot Or Not: Narratives, Rhetoric, and the Childhood Vaccination Crisis University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 8-1-2011 To Get the Shot or Not: Narratives, Rhetoric, and the Childhood Vaccination Crisis Katherine M. Hurley University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Hurley, Katherine M., "To Get the Shot or Not: Narratives, Rhetoric, and the Childhood Vaccination Crisis" (2011). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 300. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/300 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. TO GET THE SHOT OR NOT: NARRATIVES, RHETORIC, AND THE CHILDHOOD VACCINATION CRISIS __________ A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of Social Sciences University of Denver __________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy __________ by Katherine M. Hurley August 2011 Advisor: Dr. Christina Foust ©Copyright by Katherine M. Hurley 2011 All Rights Reserved Author: Katherine M. Hurley Title: TO GET THE SHOT OR NOT: NARRATIVES, RHETORIC, AND THE CHILDHOOD VACCINATION CONTROVERSY Advisor: Dr. Christina Foust Degree Date: August 2011 Abstract Parents in developed countries like the United States are questioning the need for and safety of childhood vaccinations. Incidences of disease have risen as fewer parents have vaccinated their children. Perhaps the most significant public figure to reinforce the choices of parents not-to-vaccinate is Jenny McCarthy, whose best-selling book details her theory about the cause of, and cure for, her son‘s autism. As I demonstrate, the study of the narratives is vital for understanding the vaccination crisis, not the least because of the extent to which McCarthy‘s (2007) story has echoed through parenting communities. I examine whether chosen anti- and pro-vaccination narratives meet the requirements of Fisher‘s (1984) narrative paradigm. In addition, I examine how the narratives might promote a sense of identification with audience members, particularly in how the narrators deal with a sense of guilt about the condition of their children (Burke, 1969). Further, I concentrate on both the functional nature of these narratives and on the constitutive components. The public is clearly divided on the vaccination issue. As I argue, this division may well come down to the way in which these distinct narratives constitute audiences differently, constitutions that both encourage people to act in particular ways through a sense of identification, and also outline the boundaries of what it means to be a ―good‖ parent, such that one may be more swayed, consciously or unconsciously, by one type of narrative than another. Finally, I examine how the narratives deal with the conflict between personal choice and the public good. This ii dissertation also addresses the question of how to make Fisher‘s paradigm a powerful tool for the rhetorical analysis of narratives. As I argue, focusing more explicitly than has previously been done on the Burkean (1969a, 1969b) concept of identification and including Burke‘s guilt/purification/redemption cycle in the analysis of narratives, we begin to see why stories that ―should‖ be rejected by readers for failing to achieve the requirements of the narrative paradigm become widely accepted instead. In addition, this dissertation contributes to the field of communication, particularly health communication. iii Acknowledgements I am grateful to numerous people for their support during this project. First, I would like to thank my husband Patrick, without whose encouragement and understanding I would have given up long ago. I would also like to thank my children, Jack and Georgia, who were very patient with my ―big project.‖ I greatly appreciate the support of my parents, who have always taught me to value an education and to follow through on a project. I especially would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Christina Foust, for her unwavering faith, excellent editing skills, and keen insight into this project. Finally, I would like to thank the members of my committee for giving up their valuable time in order to help me complete this dissertation. iv Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Should we get the shot? Why not? .......................................................................... 1 The Rhetorical Study of Narratives Matters ......................................................... 12 Narratives Are a Necessity.................................................................................... 18 Stories Help to Make Sense of the Crisis.............................................................. 30 The End is Just the Beginning .............................................................................. 38 Chapter Two: Narrative Theory ........................................................................................ 41 What Is Narrative? ................................................................................................ 41 Narrative Theory ................................................................................................... 45 Fisher‘s Narrative Paradigm ................................................................................. 53 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 66 Chapter Three: McCarthy‘s Anti-Vaccination Narrative ................................................. 68 Introducing Jenny McCarthy ................................................................................ 68 Revisiting Narrative Theory from Burke and Fisher ............................................ 74 Jenny McCarthy: Mother and Mayhem Maker ..................................................... 80 Does McCarthy‘s Story Measure Up? ................................................................ 117 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 125 Chapter Four: Powerful Pro-Vaccine Narratives ............................................................ 127 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 127 Why Narrative? Which Narrative? ..................................................................... 130 Rotavirus: When Intestinal Distress Becomes Dangerous.................................. 133 H1N1—Seasonal Flu‘s Dangerous ―Younger‖ Cousin ...................................... 141 Pertussis: Not Just the Common Cold ................................................................ 153 Pertussis strikes a vaccinated seven-year old .......................................... 155 Pertussis: The 100-day hack turns deadly ............................................... 167 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 176 Chapter Five: Conclusion ............................................................................................... 183 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 183 Summary and Evaluation of Narratives .............................................................. 188 Contribution to Communication Studies ............................................................ 195 Works Cited .................................................................................................................... 216 v Chapter One: Introduction Should we get the shot? Why not? Vaccinations have been considered one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine, protecting against diseases that once wiped out hundreds of thousands of children and adults worldwide, such as diphtheria, measles, and polio (Judelsohn, 2007). For instance, the small pox virus killed three hundred million people, just in the twentieth century, before the vaccine was invented which eradicated the disease (Specter, 2011). Vaccinations protect millions of children and adults from infectious diseases annually. According to one estimate, the current series of childhood immunizations recommended in the United States ―prevents approximately 10.5 million cases of infectious illness a year and 33,000 deaths‖ (Every Child by Two, 2010b). Internationally, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the World Bank estimate that vaccinations currently save approximately three million lives, with that number doubling if more funding is made available for these efforts (Every Child by Two, 2010b). Aside from the ability to spare suffering and possible death for our children, there is the added financial incentive to vaccinate them, not because of profit (as discussed below), but because vaccinations prevent health care costs that would be paid out to care for those suffering from vaccine-preventable-diseases (VPDs). Aside from the fact that high rates of vaccination protect against the spread of highly infectious diseases which could rapidly spiral into epidemics, vaccines are relatively inexpensive for the amount of 1 savings they provide in preventing health care spending on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 Submission
    16 October, 2015 The Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Committee Secretary, Re: Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 I am a Solicitor who has practiced in areas of law that have pertained to the issue of vaccination. Consequently, having conversed with professionals in various scientific and medical fields of practice on this issue and prepared matters for hearing based on their expertise, I make the following submission to emphasize the extent that the proposed legislation breaches fundamental human rights and the government’s responsibilities to it’s families and children. According to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No jab, No pay) Bill 2015 Explanatory Memorandum and Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights: “This Bill will introduce a 2015 Budget measure relevant to families. This Bill amends the immunisation requirements for child care benefit, child care rebate and the family tax benefit Part A supplement. The changes will tighten the existing immunisation requirements for these payments, reinforcing the importance of immunisation and protecting public health, especially for children. From 1 January 2016, this measure makes these payments conditional on meeting the childhood immunisation requirements for children at all ages. Exemptions will only apply for valid medical reasons, or if the Secretary has determined in writing that a child meets the immunisation requirements. The Secretary will be able to determine that a child meets the immunisation requirements after considering any decision-making principles set out in a legislative instrument made by the Minister.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Awareness, Perception, and Communication Considerations
    The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Awareness, Perception, and Communication Considerations Developing a Comprehensive National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Research Report Presented by Banyan Communications and Altarum Institute For the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation June 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................. 1 a. VICP BACKGROUND: RELATED LEGISLATION ................................................................................................. 2 2. Review of the VICP Literature ................................................................................................................. 4 a. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 4 b. VICP PERCEPTION AND REACTION ................................................................................................................ 4 c. VICP MESSAGING AND PROMOTION ............................................................................................................. 7 3. Scan of the Field: VICP Players, Media, and the Online Environment .................................................... 12 a. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 12 b. VICP AND
    [Show full text]
  • Gardner on Exorcisms • Creationism and 'Rare Earth' • When Scientific Evidence Is the Enemy
    GARDNER ON EXORCISMS • CREATIONISM AND 'RARE EARTH' • WHEN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS THE ENEMY THE MAGAZINE FOR SCIENCE AND REASON Volume 25, No. 6 • November/December 2001 THE COMMITTEE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF THE PARANORMAL AT THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY-INTERNATIONAL (ADJACENT TO THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO) • AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy. State University of New York at Buffalo Barry Karr, Executive Director Joe Nickell, Research Fellow Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director FELLOWS James E. Alcock,* psychologist. York Univ., Susan Haack, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts Loren Pankratz, psychologist. Oregon Health Toronto and Sciences, prof, of philosophy. University Sciences Univ. Jerry Andrus, magician and inventor, Albany, of Miami John Paulos, mathematician. Temple Univ. Oregon C. E. M. Hansel, psychologist. Univ. of Wales Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist. MIT Marcia Angell, M.D.. former editor-in-chief, Al Hibbs, scientist. Jet Propulsion Laboratory Massimo Polidoro, science writer, author, New England Journal of Medicine Douglas Hofstadter, professor of human under­ executive director CICAP, Italy Robert A. Baker, psychologist. Univ. of standing and cognitive science, Indiana Univ. Milton Rosenberg, psychologist, Univ. of Kentucky Gerald Holton, Mallinckrodt Professor of Chicago Stephen Barrett M.D., psychiatrist, author, Physics and professor of history of science. Wallace Sampson, M.D., clinical professor of consumer advocate, Allentown, Pa. Harvard Univ. Barry Beyerstein,* biopsychologist. Simon Ray Hyman,* psychologist. Univ. of Oregon medicine, Stanford Univ., editor. Scientific Fraser Univ.. Vancouver, B.C., Canada Leon Jaroff, sciences editor emeritus, Time Review of Alternative Medicine Irving Biederman, psychologist Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Vaccine Activists, Web 2.0, and the Postmodern Paradigm –Anoverview Of
    Vaccine 30 (2012) 3778–3789 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Vaccine j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/vaccine Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm –Anoverview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement ∗ Anna Kata McMaster University, Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, 555 Sanatorium Road Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L9C 1C4 a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Websites opposing vaccination are prevalent on the Internet. Web 2.0, defined by interaction and user- Received 26 May 2011 generated content, has become ubiquitous. Furthermore, a new postmodern paradigm of healthcare has Received in revised form emerged, where power has shifted from doctors to patients, the legitimacy of science is questioned, and 25 September 2011 expertise is redefined. Together this has created an environment where anti-vaccine activists are able to Accepted 30 November 2011 effectively spread their messages. Evidence shows that individuals turn to the Internet for vaccination Available online 13 December 2011 advice, and suggests such sources can impact vaccination decisions – therefore it is likely that anti- vaccine websites can influence whether people vaccinate themselves or their children. This overview Keywords: Anti-vaccination examines the types of rhetoric individuals may encounter online in order to better understand why the anti-vaccination movement can be convincing, despite lacking scientific support for their claims. Tactics Health communication Internet and tropes commonly used to argue against vaccination are described. This includes actions such as skew- Postmodernism ing science, shifting hypotheses, censoring dissent, and attacking critics; also discussed are frequently Vaccines made claims such as not being “anti-vaccine” but “pro-safe vaccines”, that vaccines are toxic or unnatural, Web 2.0 and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
    From: To: Community Affairs, Committee (SEN) Subject: Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 - Submission Date: Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:31:52 AM Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 - Submission Dear Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs I am writing in response to the proposed legislation that would mean parents making a conscientious choice around vaccination would no longer be eligible for Family Assistance. Firstly there is no such evidence or ‘science’ to prove that this move would decrease the level of contractable childhood illnesses at all in Australia. Furthermore there are scientists and experts in the field who are questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines and I put to you that where there is risk and where there are questions there must be a choice. To disregard such information and questions marks definitive changes in our freedoms as we know them now. And this poses fundamental questions of human rights and needs to be considered more deeply. I believe vaccinations have a place and can be used responsibly to slow disease where necessary. I am not saying I don’t believe in them. And I am not saying that I don’t believe in the science. I don’t believe all the science is being represented by the mainstream media and considered by the Australian government. I will firstly address efficacy and secondly vaccine injury, both with direct quotes and references from doctors and scientists and reputable investigative journalists. NY Times 25th November 2013. “But scientists say the problem of surging whooping cough cases has more to do with flaws in the current vaccines than with parents’ resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Anti-Vaccine Claims About NVICP Cases Are Wrong
    Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 20 Issue 1 Article 11 8-7-2019 Using and Misusing Legal Decisions: Why Anti-Vaccine Claims about NVICP Cases Are Wrong Dorit Rubinstein Reiss UC Hastings College of Law Rachel Heap Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Other Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Dorit Rubinstein Reiss & Rachel Heap, Using and Misusing Legal Decisions: Why Anti-Vaccine Claims about NVICP Cases Are Wrong, 20 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 191 (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol20/iss1/11 The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Using and Misusing Legal Decisions: Why Anti-Vaccine Claims about NVICP Cases Are Wrong Dorit Rubinstein Reiss*and Rachel Heap† Abstract The question of whether vaccines cause autism spectrum disorder (autism, or ASD) has been extensively studied. Studies from different countries around the world, looking at millions of children in total, examined it and found no link. Despite this powerful evidence, the actions of a small group who fervently believe that vaccines cause autism may lead people to question the data. One tactic used to argue that vaccines cause autism is the use of compensation decisions from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to claim such a link. This article demonstrates that not only does the nature of proof in the program make its decisions ill-suited to challenging the science but also that the cases used do not, in their content, support that conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Factory
    Animal Factory By David Kirby ISBN 13: 978-1-4299-5809-7 ISBN 10: 1-4299-5809-X About this Guide The following author biography and list of questions about Animal Factory are intended as resources to aid individual readers and book groups who would like to learn more about the author and this book. We hope that this guide will provide you a starting place for discussion, and suggest a variety of perspectives from which you might approach Animal Factory. About the Book In the 1990s reported autism cases among American children began spiking, from about 1 in 10,000 in 1987 to a shocking 1 in 166 today. This trend coincided with the addition of several new shots to the nation's already crowded vaccination schedule, grouped together and given soon after birth or in the early months of infancy. Most of these shots contained a little-known preservative called thimerosal, which includes a quantity of the toxin mercury. Evidence of Harm explores the heated controversy over what many parents, physicians, public officials, and educators have called an "epidemic" of afflicted children. Following several families, David Kirby traces their struggle to understand how and why their once-healthy kids rapidly descended into silence or disturbed behavior, often accompanied by severe physical illness. Alarmed by the levels of mercury in the vaccine schedule, these families sought answers from their doctors, from science, from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, and finally from the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration-to no avail. But as they dug deeper, the families also found powerful allies in Congress and in the small community of physicians and researchers who believe that the rise of autism and other disorders is linked to toxic levels of mercury that accumulate in the systems of some children.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Markets for Vaccines
    U.S. Markets for Vaccines U.S. Markets for Vaccines Characteristics, Case Studies, and Controversies Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Berndt, Ernst R. U.S. markets for vaccines : characteristics, case studies, and controversies / Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4280-9 ISBN-10: 0-8447-4280-5 1. Vaccines industry—United States. 2. Market surveys—United States. I. Denoncourt, Rena N. II. Warner, Anjli C. III. Title. [DNLM: 1. Vaccines—economics—United States. 2. Drug Discovery—economics—United States. 3. Drug Industry—economics—United States. QW 805 B524u 2009] HD9675.V333.U6 2009 381'.456153720973—dc22 2009006713 13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 © 2009 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wash- ington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not neces- sarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Confirmatory Bias in Health
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES CONFIRMATORY BIAS IN HEALTH DECISIONS: EVIDENCE FROM THE MMR-AUTISM CONTROVERSY Mengcen Qian Shin-Yi Chou Ernest K. Lai Working Paper 26772 http://www.nber.org/papers/w26772 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 February 2020 We are grateful to Mary E. Deily, Tin Cheuk (Tommy) Leung, and Suhui Li for valuable comments and suggestions. We also express our gratitude to conference participants at the 6th Biennial Conference of the American Society of Health Economists and the 9th World Congress of the International Health Economics Association for useful discussion. The first author (Qian) gratefully acknowledges financial supports from the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71704027) and the “Chenguang Program” supported by the Shanghai Education Development Foundation and the Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. 17CG03). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2020 by Mengcen Qian, Shin-Yi Chou, and Ernest K. Lai. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Confirmatory Bias in Health Decisions: Evidence from the MMR-Autism Controversy Mengcen Qian, Shin-Yi Chou, and Ernest K. Lai NBER Working Paper No. 26772 February 2020 JEL No.
    [Show full text]
  • Qt60b551qq Nosplash 1Dbebcd
    Copyright 2011 by Elena Conis ii Acknowledgements Portions of Chapter 6 appeared in the Journal of Medical Humanities 32, no. 2 (2011): 155-166. iii Abstract Calling the Shots: A Social History of Vaccination in the U.S., 1962 – 2008 Elena Conis In two centuries of vaccination in the U.S., the last five decades constituted a unique era. American children received more vaccines than any previous generation, and laws requiring their immunization against a litany of diseases became common. Vaccination rates soared, preventable infections plummeted, and popular acceptance of vaccines remained strong—even as an increasingly vocal cross-section of Americans questioned the safety and necessity of vaccines and the wisdom of related policies. This dissertation examines how and why, between the 1960s and 2000s, Americans came to accept the state–mandated vaccination of all children against a growing number of infections despite the growing prominence of vaccine doubts. I argue that vaccines and vaccine policies fundamentally changed the ways health experts and lay Americans perceived the diseases they were designed to prevent. Second, I demonstrate that vaccination policies and their acceptance throughout this period were as contingent on political, social, and cultural concerns as they were on scientific findings. Thirdly, I show how, as new vaccine policies took shape, feminism, environmentalism, and other social movements laid challenge to scientific and governmental authority, with profound—but previously overlooked—implications for how Americans perceived vaccination. Finally, I argue that the relationship between vaccination beliefs and political ideology is more complex than historians have heretofore asserted, for selective and blanket vaccination doubts at the end of the twentieth century were as informed by leftist critiques of iv capitalism and social hegemonies as by traditional American libertarian ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagining Illness: Public Health and Visual Culture, University of Minnesota Press, 2010, 285 Pp., $27.50 (Paperback)
    International Journal of Communication 6 (2012), Book Review 43–47 1932–8036/2012BKR00090043 David Serlin (Ed.), Imagining Illness: Public Health and Visual Culture, University of Minnesota Press, 2010, 285 pp., $27.50 (paperback). Reviewed by Joy V. Fuqua Queens College/City University of New York Imagining Illness: Public Health and Visual Culture makes the most of timing. Not only does editor David Serlin’s introduction utilize a do-it-yourself YouTube video titled ―HPV Boredom 2‖ as its starting point, but the anti-HPV vaccine Gardasil has become a more than tangential topic in the 2012 presidential process. Contenders for the Republican nomination have rendered various opinions about Texas Governor Rick Perry’s 2007 executive order that required all young girls entering sixth grade to receive the vaccine unless their parents opted out. The Texas legislature quickly overturned the order and now the state does not require the vaccination. Indeed, Perry’s current ―hands-off‖ regulatory position seems to contradict such an executive order, even to the extent that during one of the 2011 Republican presidential debates, both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann challenged Perry over his executive order. Bachmann went so far as to charge, without any medical evidence, that Gardasil caused ―mental retardation.‖ The debate over the vaccine’s public health implications called attention to the ideological features of public health policies. Another key contemporary frame for the reception of this collection of 12 essays is the ongoing public health disaster in Japan. As the nuclear disaster continues to unfold, Fukushima is fast becoming a global event that challenges a ―containment‖ approach to public health.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of a Scare | Print Article | Newsweek.Com
    Anatomy of a Scare | Print Article | Newsweek.com http://www.newsweek.com/id/185853/output/print Anatomy of a Scare When one study linked childhood vaccines to autism, it set off a panic. The research didn't hold up, but some wounded families can't move on. Sharon Begley NEWSWEEK From the magazine issue dated Mar 2, 2009 Like many people in London on that bleak February day in 1998, biochemist Nicholas Chadwick was eager to hear what the scientists would say. The Royal Free Hospital, where he was a graduate student in the lab of gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, had called a press conference to unveil the results of a new study. With flashbulbs popping, Wakefield stepped up to the bank of microphones: he and his colleagues, he said, had discovered a new syndrome that they believed was triggered by the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. In eight of the 12 children in their study, being published that day in the respected journal The Lancet, they had found severe intestinal inflammation, with the symptoms striking six days, on average, after the children received the MMR. But hospitals don't hold elaborate press conferences for studies of gut problems. The reason for all the hoopla was that nine of the children in the study also had autism, and the tragic disease had seized them between one and 14 days after their MMR jab. The vaccine, Wakefield suggested, had damaged the intestine—in particular, the measles part had caused serious inflammation—allowing harmful proteins to leak from the gut into the bloodstream and from there to the brain, where they damaged neurons in a way that triggered autism.
    [Show full text]