NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label MMR vaccine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MMR vaccine. Show all posts

22 June 2025

8 Vaccines You Need After 50 — and 1 to Consider 11JUN25



 SINCE we can't count on that lunatic Sec of Health and Human Services fascist fotze robert f kennedy jr for honest, safe and reliable science based healthcare advise I am sharing this from AARP. What you do with it is your choice of course.....

8 Vaccines You Need After 50 — and 1 to Consider


It’s not just babies and youngsters who need a poke to protect against serious and potentially lethal diseases. Adults need shots too, especially as our immune systems weaken with age.

In fact, there are several vaccines needed after the age of 50, including some that are relatively new, like the RSV vaccine, says Morgan Katz, M.D., an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Below are the vaccinations every adult needs, followed by two, for hepatitis A and B, that you need only if you have certain risk factors.

What won’t you see on the list? The chicken pox vaccine, since most adults already have immunity from childhood exposure to the disease, Katz says.

“Almost all adults over 40 have been exposed to chicken pox,” she says, noting that it would be “an extremely rare case” for an adult not to have been. That said, if you think you could be in that tiny minority, ask your doctor about getting the chicken pox vaccine as an adult.

For the rest of the list, you can get your necessary shots at doctors’ offices, pharmacies, workplaces, community health clinics and other locations. And most health insurance plans will pick up the tab, so stop in and let ‘em stick it to you. 

1. Influenza vaccine 
Who needs it: All adults, no matter the age.

How often: Once a year, usually in the fall. “The virus itself changes every year,” Katz says. “Researchers try to predict what will be the most common strain that season, then reformulate the vaccine accordingly.” Flu season typically begins in October and ends in March, so the CDC recommends rolling up your sleeve by the end of October, since it takes about two weeks after a vaccination for flu-fighting antibodies to develop in the body. 

What you need: Adults 65 and older should make sure they receive a high-dose version of the shot. The options include:

Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent is an injectable vaccine that contains four times the antigen (the flu proteins that our immune system recognizes and attacks) of a standard-dose inactivated flu vaccine, to help create a stronger immune response.
Fluad Quadrivalent is an adjuvanted flu vaccine, made with an MF59 adjuvant, an additive that creates a more robust immune response.
Flublok Quadrivalent. This is a recombinant vaccine, which means it does not require an egg-grown virus and does not use chicken eggs in the manufacturing process. This may be a good option if you are allergic to eggs (the Fluzone and Fluad offerings are grown in eggs). Flublok Quadrivalent contains three times the antigen of other standard-dose inactivated flu vaccines.

Why you need it: Each year, the flu is to blame for hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and tens of thousands of deaths, and older adults are at higher risk for these serious outcomes. Fifty to 70 percent of flu-related hospitalizations occur among people 65 and older, according to the CDC, and 70 to 85 percent of flu-related deaths occur among this age group.

Talk to your doctor if: You’ve had a severe reaction to the flu shot in the past, are allergic to eggs, have (or have had) Guillain-Barré syndrome or have a fever. (In that case, you’ll likely be asked to wait until your temp is back to normal before you get the vaccine.)

Do you need a measles vaccine?
Measles outbreaks throughout the U.S. are causing many older adults to wonder whether they need a measles shot. The answer: You may.

Who doesn’t need one? The CDC says you don’t need a measles vaccine if you were born before 1957 or if you have had two doses of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine.

Who may need one? Health experts say people vaccinated before 1968 and those vaccinated between 1968 and 1989 may need an additional dose of MMR since they may have been given a less effective measles vaccine or may have only received one dose of MMR.

Talk to your doctor if you are unsure of your vaccination status. The CDC says there is no harm in getting another dose of the vaccine, even if you have prior immunity. 

Parting shot: Even if you’re vaccinated, there’s a possibility you could get the flu. How well the inoculation protects depends on different factors, including your age and health status. That said, a flu vaccination may lessen the severity of illness if you do get sick. Research, including a study published in 2024, finds that flu vaccination ​reduces flu-related hospitalizations and deaths, including among older adults.

2. COVID-19 vaccine  
Who needs it: It’s recommended for most adults 18 and older (parents of children ages 6 months to 17 years can get the vaccine in discussion with their doctor), and especially for people 65 and older, who are at increased risk for complications from a coronavirus infection.

How often: Health officials haven’t set a schedule for COVID-19 vaccines, but it’s likely the shot will become an annual one for some people at least, much like the flu vaccine. Adults 65 and older, however, may need the vaccine more frequently. In 2024, health officials recommended that adults 65-plus get a second dose of the 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine six months after the first dose of that vaccine, making it a fall and spring vaccine for many older adults. 

What you need: An updated COVID-19 vaccine from either Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech or Novavax.
Why you need it: COVID-19 has killed more than 1.2 million Americans since it started circulating in the U.S. and has hospitalized millions of others. It’s especially risky for older adults, who are more likely to suffer complications from an infection.

Talk to your doctor if: You’ve had a severe allergic reaction to a medication or vaccine in the past.

Parting shot: Make it easy on yourself and get your fall COVID-19 vaccine when you go in for your flu shot. Experts say there’s no need to schedule a separate appointment.

3. RSV vaccine
Who needs it: In recently updated guidance, the CDC says adults ages 75 and older should get the vaccine to protect against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), as should people ages 60 to 74 who live in nursing homes or who have certain medical conditions that put them at increased risk for severe illness, like heart and lung disease.

How often: For now, you need to get it only once. However, the RSV vaccine is still pretty new, so recommendations could change.

What you need: Three vaccines have been approved for older adults: Arexvy, from manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline, Abrysvo, from drugmaker Pfizer, and mRESVIA, from Moderna.

Why you need it: RSV is often associated with children, but it can be especially dangerous for older adults too. Each year, it causes 60,000 to 160,000 hospitalizations and 6,000 to 10,000 deaths among adults 65 and older, according to the CDC. In clinical trials, the vaccines were found to significantly reduce the risk of serious symptoms from an infection.  

Talk to your doctor if: You’re in the 60-74 age range and are unsure whether your underlying health issues put you at greater risk for complications from an RSV infection.

Parting shot: The vaccine could be especially helpful when it comes to avoiding a fall/winter “tripledemic” — a name used to describe the convergence of flu, COVID-19 and RSV.

4. Pneumococcal vaccine
Who needs it: Healthy adults 50 and older, or adults 19-49 with certain risk factors (smoking or health problems such as chronic lung or heart disease, leukemia, lymphoma or alcoholism).

How often: Adults who haven’t received a pneumococcal vaccine should opt for either the PCV15, PCV20 or PCV21. If PCV15 is used, it should be followed by a dose of PPSV23 a year later. (If you’re immunocompromised, you may get it sooner.) 

Why you need it: Before COVID-19 came along, pneumococcal disease, which can cause pneumonia, killed more people in the U.S. each year than all other vaccine-preventable diseases combined. Young children and those over 65 have the highest incidence of serious illness, and older adults are more likely to die from it. Experts estimate PCV13 (one of the pneumococcal vaccines available) prevented more than 30,000 cases of invasive pneumococcal disease and 3,000 deaths in its first three years of use.

Parting shot: If you work around chronically ill people — say, in a hospital or nursing home — talk to your doctor about getting the vaccine, even if you’re healthy.

Find COVID-19 Vaccines in Your State
AARP's 53 state and territory COVID-19 vaccine guides can help you find vaccines near you and provide the latest answers to common questions about costs, eligibility and availability.

5. Tdap vaccine (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis) and/or the Td booster (tetanus, diphtheria)
Who needs it: The Tdap vaccine came out in 2005, and along with protecting against tetanus and diphtheria, like the vaccine it replaced, it includes additional protection against whooping cough, also known as pertussis.

If you can’t remember ever getting this shot, you probably need it. Doing so, Katz says, can count for one of the Td boosters you’re supposed to get every 10 years. (You know the one … it’s the shot you wonder if you’re current on after you step on a rusty nail during your vacation.)

How often: Adults should receive a booster dose of either Tdap or Td (a different vaccine that protects against tetanus and diphtheria but not pertussis) every 10 years, the CDC says, or after five years if you get a severe wound or burn.

Why you need it: Due to a rise in whooping cough cases in the U.S., you really do need to be vaccinated against it, even if you’re over 65. In the first year after getting vaccinated, Tdap prevents the illness in about 7 out of 10 people who received the vaccine. 

Talk to your doctor if: You have epilepsy or other nervous system problems, had severe swelling or pain after a previous dose of either vaccine, or have (or have had) Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Parting shot: This vaccine is especially crucial for people — including parents, grandparents and childcare providers — who have close contact with children younger than 12 months.

6. Shingles (herpes zoster) vaccine
Who needs it: The CDC recommends that everyone 50 and older get the Shingrix shingles vaccine, even if they had the earlier recommended vaccine, Zostavax — which was much less effective — and even if they’ve already had shingles. 

How often: Shingrix comes in two doses, spaced two to six months apart. 

Why you need it: One in 3 people will get shingles, usually after age 50. The risk rises with age. By 85, half of adults will have had at least one outbreak. Chicken pox and shingles are caused by the same virus, varicella zoster. After a person recovers from chicken pox, this virus stays dormant for decades in the body, ready to appear when the immune system is weakened by stress, medication or disease.

This infection causes a red rash and painful blisters. About 15 percent of sufferers are left with extreme nerve pain — a condition called postherpetic neuralgia, which can last for months or years. Shingrix can protect 97 percent of people in their 50s and 60s, and 91 percent of those in their 70s and 80s. 

Talk to your doctor if: You are not feeling well or currently have shingles. There are few other reasons not to get the vaccine. 

Parting shot: Older adults should get this vaccine whether or not they remember having chicken pox as a child. Why? More than 99 percent of Americans over 40 have been exposed to the varicella zoster virus, even if they don’t recall getting chicken pox. 

7. Hepatitis A vaccine 
Who needs it: People 50 and older who are at high risk for hepatitis A, a disease of the liver. Infections result primarily from travel to another country where hepatitis A virus transmission is common, through close contact with a hepatitis A–infected individual, or recreational drug use.

How often: Once, but given in two doses over six months.

Why you need it: Hepatitis A rates in the U.S. have declined by more than 95 percent since the hepatitis A vaccine first became available in 1995. In 2016, there were an estimated 4,000 hepatitis A cases in the U.S.

Parting shot: This is a sneaky disease. You may not have any telltale signs — and the likelihood of symptoms decreases as you age.

8. Hepatitis B vaccine
Who needs it: Adults 50 and older who are at risk for contracting hepatitis B, a liver infection. Hepatitis B is transmitted when a body fluid (blood, semen, saliva) from a person infected with the hepatitis B virus enters the body of someone who is not infected. This can happen through sexual contact or contact with blood or open sores (say, from a job that exposes you to human bodily fluids) or sharing anything from a needle to a razor to a toothbrush with an infected person. Other risk factors for infection include being on kidney dialysis, traveling to countries where hepatitis B is common, or having HIV.

How often: Adults getting the vaccine need three doses — the second dose given four weeks after the first; the third dose five months after the second. There is also a combination vaccine for both hepatitis A and B called Twinrix, which is given in three doses over six months.

Why you need it: The CDC estimates that the number of new hepatitis B infections in 2021 was 13,300.

Talk to your doctor if: You have a life-threatening allergy to yeast or to any other component of the vaccine, or you are moderately or severely ill when a dose of vaccine is scheduled.

Editor’s note: This story, published March 15, 2021, has been updated to reflect new recommendations for COVID-19, flu, RSV and pneumococcal vaccinations. Barbara Stepko contributed reporting to this story.

Michelle Crouch is a contributing writer who has covered health and personal finance for some of the nation’s top consumer publications. Her work has appeared in  Reader’s Digest,  Real Simple,  Prevention,  The Washington Post and  The New York Times.

07 May 2025

RFK Jr. will order placebo testing for new vaccines, alarming health experts 1MAI25


CHIEF mengele wannabe and all his butt kissing menegele wannabes need to be injected with placebo vaccines for all the deadly diseases of the world which tested and approved vaccines exist and then wait for the results. Then whoever is left can offer their opinion if this sort of testing is prudent. 

RFK Jr. will order placebo testing for new vaccines, alarming health experts


The potential change outlined in a statement would require all new vaccines to undergo placebo testing, sparking concerns among medical experts.


The potential change outlined in a statement says all new vaccines will be required to undergo placebo testing, a procedure in which some people receive the vaccine and others receive an inert substance — such as a saline shot — before the results are compared.

“All new vaccines will undergo safety testing in placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure — a radical departure from past practices,” an HHS spokesperson told The Washington Post in response to questions about Kennedy’s comments on the measles vaccines and general vaccine policy.

Vaccines for new pathogens are often tested this way. But for well-researched diseases, such as measles and polio, public health experts say it makes little sense to do that and can be unethical, because the placebo group would not receive a known effective intervention.

HHS did not clarify how the change will be implemented and for which vaccines the testing would apply, nor did it define what the department meant by “new vaccine.” But the government indicated it wouldn’t apply to the flu vaccine, which is updated year to year and which HHS stated “has been tried and tested for more than 80 years.” In response to questions about whether other vaccines previously safety tested would be newly scrutinized, the department focused on its concerns around the coronavirus vaccine but did not address other immunizations.

Kennedy has long disparaged vaccines, said they are not adequately safety tested and previously called for placebo testing for vaccines that are approved for use.

“Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine — he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability,” HHS said in a statement.

The HHS statement raised concerns among medical and public health experts who said the move could be a significant shift in how the country has ensured the safety of vaccines for decades, as well as cast doubt on vaccines that are safe, effective and key to public health. The potential change comes as public trust in vaccines continues to decline amid a growing measles outbreak and worries over Kennedy’s mixed messaging about immunizations.

Medical and public health experts also expressed dismay that the testing change could require coronavirus vaccines, and potentially others, to undergo costly and, in their view, unnecessary studies that would probably limit vaccine production and access — and leave more Americans at risk of preventable disease.

“You are watching the gradual dissolution of the vaccine infrastructure in this country,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “The goal is to make vaccines less available and less affordable.”

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has injected uncertainty into the annual process for approving an updated coronavirus shot traditionally offered in the fall, indicating there may need to be more data.

“Except for the COVID vaccine, none of the vaccines on the CDC’s childhood recommended schedule was tested against an inert placebo, meaning we know very little about the actual risk profiles of these products,” HHS said in its statement.

Vaccine and public health experts said the statement from HHS is a combination of misinformation and exaggeration or misrepresentation of scientific studies.

“To make a blanket statement like that, I think that would go against the science,” said Sean O’Leary, a pediatric-infectious-diseases physician and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on infectious diseases.

The move came as Kennedy urged parents this week to “do your own research” and said that “making sure the vaccines are safe” is one of his top priorities, during an interview with Phil McGraw, who is known as Dr. Phil.

Since Kennedy became HHS secretary, the department has appointed a vaccine skeptic to investigate the debunked link between vaccination and autism. Peter Marks, the nation’s top vaccine regulator, resigned under pressure. And Kennedy has not spoken as forcefully for vaccination amid an ongoing measles outbreak as the first Trump administration did.

The HHS statement and others from Kennedy casting doubt on vaccine safety are part of his long-running effort to decrease confidence in immunizations, said David Gorski, a Wayne State University School of Medicine professor of surgery and oncology and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, which debunks misinformation in medicine.

“Instead of just an anti-vaccine activist … saying this stuff, now the federal government, HHS and FDA is now saying this stuff. That matters,” he said.

‘Undermines real transparency’

Kennedy has previously claimed that vaccine testing studies are not long enough to capture potential safety issues, although vaccines are continuously and rigorously monitored.

“A lot of the injuries that come from medication are autoimmune injuries and allergic injuries and neurodevelopmental injuries that have long diagnostic horizons or long incubation periods, so you can do the study and you will not see the injury for five years,” Kennedy said in a 2021 interview. Waiting to conduct a multiyear study as per Kennedy’s suggestion would slow the development of vaccines and their release.

Now as head of HHS, Kennedy has said he wants to restore “gold standard” science to the federal health agencies and look at the data.

“HHS is now building surveillance systems that will accurately measure vaccine risks as well as benefits — because real science demands both transparency and accountability,” an HHS spokesperson told The Post.

Medical experts dismissed the idea that a new system was needed, saying the current system adequately tracks adverse events associated with vaccines.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) received a list of commitments from Kennedy before voting to confirm the secretary. That included a commitment to work within the “current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems” and giving a 30-day notice to the Senate health committee if the agency seeks to make changes to any federal vaccine safety monitoring programs, Cassidy said in a Feb. 4 speech on the Senate floor.

In a statement to The Washington Post Thursday, Cassidy raised concerns about HHS’s intended shift.

“The first vaccine for a disease is already proven safe through a placebo-controlled trial,” Cassidy said. “Updating that vaccine does not require a new placebo-controlled trial to determine its safety. To require a placebo group would deny those patients access to the vaccine that has already been found safe.”

“Claiming vaccines have risks the data doesn’t show or trying to overstate vaccine risks is not transparency,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California College of the Law at San Francisco who tracks public health vaccine law. “It’s misinformation, and it undermines real transparency and informed consent.”

Additionally, many vaccines have been tested against placebos, the experts said. And while HHS said the trials would be for “new vaccines,” if Kennedy tries to test vaccines that have already been approved, such as the measles vaccine, against a placebo, that would mean in practice some children would not get vaccinated against the infectious disease while their neighbors did — a quandary that physicians say leaves them susceptible to diseases when there is a vaccine that works.

Stanley Plotkin, a pioneer in the field who developed the rubella vaccine, said that when scientists test vaccines against a new disease, they typically look for evidence that the vaccinated individuals do not get a disease, compared with those who received a placebo. This is how the coronavirus vaccines were tested, in 30,000-person trials in which half of the participants received saline shots.

But when a disease is already well understood, scientists can look for evidence that vaccines induce a biological response that has been scientifically shown to protect against the disease — what scientists call “a correlate of protection.”

In the case of diseases that cause serious illness and can even be fatal, if there are existing interventions, the use of placebos is often not considered ethical.

“Ethics must be taken into account when you set up a study,” Plotkin said. “Can I ethically agree to having people acquire the disease because they receive a placebo?”

Coronavirus vaccine in play?

The administration has taken aim at reexamining the coronavirus vaccine.

When asked by CBS News on Tuesday whether the Food and Drug Administration plans to green-light updates to the coronavirus shots, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency was “taking a look.”

“We have a bit of a public trust problem,” Makary said. “I think there’s a void of data. And I think rather than allow that void to be filled with opinions, I’d like to see some good data.”

In a statement, HHS affirmed Makary’s comments: “Using the COVID pandemic as an eternal justification for blanket approvals of new products will not happen under the leadership of Commissioner Makary.”

Additionally, the Trump administration is seeking for the drug manufacturer Novavax to commit to conducting a new clinical trial on its coronavirus vaccine after it gets approved. The company’s shot has been available under emergency use authorization and is the only vaccine that uses a more traditional protein base instead of messenger RNA — an appealing option to some who have reactions to mRNA shots.

The FDA was on track to grant full approval to the vaccine April 1, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations. Top Trump FDA officials told agency regulators to pause the approval, these sources said — which some vaccine experts say amounts to political interference into decisions typically made by career staff tasked with reviewing the data.

“To be clear, this is a new product that Novavax is trying to introduce to the market with a study of a different product from 2021. New products require new clinical studies,” Makary wrote Saturday in a post on X. Several vaccine experts dismiss the notion that the vaccine constitutes a new product.

Such a move would be costly and suggests a potential shift in how the agency may approach coronavirus vaccines going forward. Typically, Pfizer and Moderna get instructions from the FDA on how to update their vaccines in June. It’s unclear whether they will need to run new clinical trials for their vaccines, which would be unlikely to occur before the annual coronavirus shot in the fall.

“While we cannot comment on this specifically, we look forward to continued collaboration with the Administration and teams across HHS,” said Chris Ridley, a spokesman for Moderna.

Medical experts The Post spoke to predicted that the change by Kennedy could limit new vaccines approved under his watch, as well as slow investment by pharmaceutical companies. Ultimately, that would result in fewer vaccines available.

“It’s just not correct. They obviously don’t understand how vaccines are approved and how one obtains safety data,” said Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota infectious-disease expert who advised President Joe Biden’s transition team, adding that the change threatened the existence of coronavirus vaccines.

Caitlin Gilbert and Fenit Nirappil contributed to this report.

+1

More on RFK Jr. and HHS


07 March 2014

Here Are 5 Infuriating Examples of Facts Making People Dumber & Study: You Can't Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind 5&3MAR14

I have to admit I am guilty of the behaviour outlined below, most recently following the Russia-Ukraine story (political junkie that I am). I saw it as Russian aggression against Ukraine, but after reading and listening to an interview on TRNN I have a very different take on the story. Now I see it as the struggle by the common people of Ukraine against the corruption of the oligarchs that were ruling them in cooperation with the oligarchs controlling Russia with putin. putin's Russia and the corporate / bank-financial cabals of the West have escalated this from a national revolution holding out the promise of freedom and democracy to a dangerous geopolitical crisis. This from Mother Jones.....
| Wed Mar. 5, 2014 3:00 AM GMT
On Monday, I reported on the latest study to take a bite out of the idea of human rationality. In a paper just published in Pediatrics, Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth University and his colleagues showed that presenting people with information confirming the safety of vaccines triggered a "backfire effect," in which people who already distrusted vaccines actually became less likely to say they would vaccinate their kids.
Unfortunately, this is hardly the only example of such a frustrating response being documented by researchers. Nyhan and his coauthor, Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter, have captured several others, as have other researchers. Here are some examples:
1. Tax cuts increase revenue? In a 2010 study, Nyhan and Reifler asked people to read a fake newspaper article containing a real quotation of George W. Bush, in which the former president asserted that his tax cuts "helped increase revenues to the Treasury." In some versions of the article, this false claim was then debunked by economic evidence: A correction appended to the end of the article stated that in fact, the Bush tax cuts "were followed by an unprecedented three-year decline in nominal tax revenues, from $2 trillion in 2000 to $1.8 trillion in 2003." The study found that conservatives who read the correction were twice as likely to believe Bush's claim was true as were conservatives who did not read the correction.
2. Death panels! Another notorious political falsehood is Sarah Palin's claim that Obamacare would create "death panels." To test whether they could undo the damage caused by this highly influential morsel of misinformation, Nyhan and his colleagues had study subjects read an article about the "death panels" claim, which in some cases ended with a factual correction explaining that "nonpartisan health care experts have concluded that Palin is wrong." Among survey respondents who were very pro-Palin and who had a high level of political knowledge, the correction actually made them more likely to wrongly embrace the false "death panels" theory.
3. Obama is a Muslim! And if that's still not enough, yet another Nyhan and Reifler study examined the persistence of the "President Obama is a Muslim" myth. In this case, respondents watched a video of President Obama denying that he is a Muslim or even stating affirmatively, "I am a Christian." Once again, the correction—uttered in this case by the president himself—often backfired in the study, making belief in the falsehood that Obama is a Muslim worse among certain study participants. What's more, the backfire effect was particularly notable when the researchers administering the study were white. When they were nonwhite, subjects were more willing to change their minds, an effect the researchers explained by noting that "social desirability concerns may affect how respondents behave when asked about sensitive topics." In other words, in the company of someone from a different race than their own, people tend to shift their responses based upon what they think that person's worldview might be.
4. The alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda link. In a 2009 study, Monica Prasad of Northwestern University and her colleagues directly challenged Republican partisans about their false belief that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated in the 9/11 attacks, a common charge during the Bush years. The so-called challenge interviews included citing the findings of the 9/11 Commission and even a statement by George W. Bush, asserting that his administration had "never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda." Despite these facts, only 1 out of 49 partisans changed his or her mind after the factual correction. Forty-one of the partisans "deflected" the information in a variety of ways, and seven actually denied holding the belief in the first place (although they clearly had).
5. Global warming. On the climate issue, there does not appear to be any study that clearly documents a backfire effect. However, in a 2011 study, researchers at American and Ohio State universities found a closely related "boomerang effect." In the experiment, research subjects from upstate New York read news articles about how climate change might increase the spread of West Nile Virus, which were accompanied by the pictures of the faces of farmers who might be affected. But in one case, the people were said to be farmers in upstate New York (in other words, victims who were quite socially similar to the research subjects); in the other, they were described as farmers from either Georgia or from France (much more distant victims). The intent of the article was to raise concern about the health consequences of climate change, but when Republicans read the article about the more distant farmers, their support for action on climate change decreased, a pattern that was stronger as their Republican partisanship increased. (When Republicans read about the proximate New York farmers, there was no boomerang effect, but they did not become more supportive of climate action either.)
Together, all of these studies support the theory of "motivated reasoning": The idea that our prior beliefs, commitments, and emotions drive our responses to new information, such that when we are faced with facts that deeply challenge these commitments, we fight back against them to defend our identities. So next time you feel the urge to argue back against some idiot on the internet…pause, take a deep breath, and realize not only that arguing might not do any good, but that in fact, it might very well backfire.

Study: You Can't Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind

A new study examined multiple strategies for communicating about the safety and importance of vaccines. None of them worked.

| Mon Mar. 3, 2014 10:50 AM GMT
Vaccine denial is dangerous. We know this for many reasons, but just consider one of them: In California in 2010, 10 children died in a whooping cough outbreak that was later linked, in part, to the presence of 39 separate clusters of unvaccinated children in the state. It's that simple: When too many children go unvaccinated, vaccine-preventable diseases spread more easily, and sometimes children die. Nonetheless, as scientifically unfounded fears about childhood vaccines causing autism have proliferated over the past decade or more, a minority of parents are turning to "personal belief exemptions," so-called "alternative vaccine schedules," and other ways to dodge or delay vaccinating their kids.
So as a rational person, you might think it would be of the utmost importance to try to talk some sense into these people. But there's a problem: According to a major new study in the journal Pediatrics, trying to do so may actually make the problem worse. The paper tested the effectiveness of four separate pro-vaccine messages, three of which were based very closely on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) itself talks about vaccines. The results can only be called grim: Not a single one of the messages was successful when it came to increasing parents' professed intent to vaccinate their children. And in several cases the messages actually backfired, either increasing the ill-founded belief that vaccines cause autism or even, in one case, apparently reducing parents' intent to vaccinate.
Click here for more on vaccine-dodging parents.
The study, by political scientist Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College* and three colleagues, adds to a large body of frustrating research on how hard it is to correct false information and get people to accept indisputable facts. Nyhan and one of his coauthors, Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, are actually the coauthors of a much discussed previous study showing that when politically conservative test subjects read a fake newspaper article containing a quotation of George W. Bush asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, followed by a factual correction stating that this was not actually true, they believed Bush's falsehood more strongly afterwards—an outcome that Nyhan and Reifler dubbed a "backfire effect."
Unfortunately, the vaccine issue is prime terrain for such biased and motivated reasoning; recent research even suggests that a conspiratorial, paranoid mindset prevails among some vaccine rejectionists. To try to figure out how to persuade them, in the new study researchers surveyed a representative sample of 1,759 Americans with at least one child living in their home. A first phase of the study determined their beliefs about vaccines; then, in a follow-up, respondents were asked to consider one of four messages (or a control message) about vaccine effectiveness and the importance of kids getting the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.
The first message, dubbed "Autism correction," was a factual, science-heavy correction of false claims that the MMR vaccine causes autism, assuring parents that the vaccine is "safe and effective" and citing multiple studies that disprove claims of an autism link. The second message, dubbed "Disease risks," simply listed the many risks of contracting the measles, the mumps, or rubella, describing the nasty complications that can come with these diseases. The third message, dubbed "Disease narrative," told a "true story" about a 10-month-old whose temperature shot up to a terrifying 106 degrees after he contracted measles from another child in a pediatrician's waiting room.
Child with measles CDC/llinois Department of Public Health
All three of these messages are closely based on messages (here, here, and here) that appear on the CDC website. And then there was a final message that was not directly based on CDC communications, dubbed "Disease images." In this case, as a way of emphasizing the importance of vaccines, test subjects were asked to examine three fairly disturbing images of children afflicted with measles, mumps, and rubella. One of those images used is at right.
The results showed that by far, the least successful messages were "Disease narrative" and "Disease images." Hearing the frightening narrative actually increased respondents' likelihood of thinking that getting the MMR vaccine will cause serious side effects, from 7.7 percent to 13.8 percent. Similarly, looking at the disturbing images increased test subjects' belief that vaccines cause autism. In other words, both of these messages backfired.
Why did that happen? Dartmouth's Nyhan isn't sure, but he comments that "if people read about or see sick children, it may be easier to imagine other kinds of health risks to children, including possibly side effects of vaccines that are actually quite rare." (When it comes to side effects, Nyhan is referring not to autism but to the small minority of cases in which vaccines cause adverse reactions.)
The two more straightforward text-only messages, "Austism correction" and "Disease risks," had more mixed effects. "Disease risks" didn't cause any harm, but it didn't really produce any benefits either.
As for "Autism correction," it actually worked, among survey respondents as a whole, to somewhat reduce belief in the falsehood that vaccines cause autism. But at the same time, the message had an unexpected negative effect, decreasing the percentage of parents saying that they would be likely to vaccinate their children.
Looking more closely, the researchers found that this occurred because of a strong backfire effect among the minority of test subjects who were the most distrustful of vaccines. In this group, the likelihood of saying they would give their kids the MMR vaccine decreased to 45 percent (versus 70 percent in the control group) after they received factual, scientific information debunking the vaccines-autism link. Indeed, the study therefore concluded that "no intervention increased intent to vaccinate among parents who are the least favorable toward vaccines."
Nyhan carefully emphasizes that the study cannot say anything about the effectiveness of other possible messages beyond the ones that were tested. So there may be winners out there that simply weren't in the experiment—although as Nyhan added, "I don't have a good candidate." In any event, given results like these, any new messages ought to be tested as well.
"I don't think our results imply that they shouldn't communicate why vaccines are a good idea," adds Nyhan. "But they do suggest that we should be more careful to test the messages that we use, and to question the intuition that countering misinformation is likely to be the most effective strategy."
Finally, Nyhan adds that in order to protect public health by encouraging widespread vaccinations, public communication efforts aren't the only tools at our disposal. "Other policy measures might be more effective," he notes. For instance, recently we reported on how easy it is for parents to dodge getting their kids vaccinated in some states; in some cases, it requires little more than a onetime signature on a form. Tightening these policies might be considerably more helpful than trying to win hearts and minds. That wasn't really working out anyway, and thanks to the new study, we now know that vaccine deniers' imperviousness to facts may be a key part of the reason why.
* This article previously referred to Dartmouth College as Dartmouth University. We regret the error.

 The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
 http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/brendan-nyhan-backfire-effects-facts