NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN

SCIENCE

Vaccines,
Social Media ?
and the
Public Health
Introduction –Vaccines and Vitriol
by
Couples have babies, whether adopted or birthed, and raise children. That’s not typically national news, unless of
Kim R. Finer
course you are Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. Zuckerberg, who is chairman, CEO, and co-
Department ofhasBiological
founder of Facebook, over 90 millionSciences
followers andKent
his every personal and professional move is discussed
State University
by national at Stark,
media and followers alike. InOH
2016, when Mark announced that baby Max was ready for her first
vaccine series, the web exploded with thoughts, advice, and critiques of the action including over 70,000
comments, many by anti-vaccine proponents including the quotes below (<https://www.facebook.com/zuck?
fref=nf>, <https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/mark-zuckerberg-angers-anti-
vaxxers-with-photo-of-baby-at-doctors-ofce- getting-vaccinations/>).
1. Injecting newborns and infants with disease and neurotoxins is disgusting science that injures millions every year.
...
Shame on all of you and your souls.
2. Poor baby…. Forget those natural immunities we got the good stuff right here in this syringe.
3. I am sorry to see you unnecessarily putting your kid at risk by responding to faux science and propaganda.
Who knew that a routine childhood experience would raise such ire? And where do critics of vaccines get
information regarding vaccine public health value or toxicity? Are these opponents immunologists, medical
experts, or microbiologists? Have they read the scientific literature or carried out experiments to demonstrate a
link between vaccine administration and adverse events such as death, neurological impairment, and physical
disability? Or are their opinions shaped and formulated through social media, personal experience, and cultural
bias? If it’s any of the explanations provided in the previous sentence, then their opinions are unwarranted and
most likely grounded in pseudoscience.
These individuals have failed to apply the scientific method (or accessed information derived from its application)
—in particular, testing hypotheses to provide empirical support for their conclusions. When searching the web for
information and guidance regarding personal health issues, it is important to remember that you can’t always
believe what
you read. Rather, it is imperative that you evaluate statements/posts/blogs critically to determine if the
information is based upon research using the scientific method.

Assignment
View the following videos:
• Basic “earworm” on the steps of the scientific method (running time: 3:08 min).
<https://youtu.be/wlb7tLJy5AI>
• Video clip “interview show” (original production) Chit Chat with Carol Conley (running time: 6:58 min).
<https://youtu.be/lqPvgLtB4Fo>.
 NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING
IN SCIENCE
Part I – Science vs. Pseudoscience
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has been debated by some and the use of the term
“pseudoscience” dismissed by others. However, if we focus on the scientific process—utilizing a set of defend
methods (experimental analysis) to approach problems—a clear difference emerges because pseudoscience statements
arise from opinion without or contrary to experimental analysis, i.e., unwarranted opinion.
Network television talk shows often present “science” discussions. Dr. Phil, Ellen, Steve Harvey, personalities on
The View and The Talk, and many others bring in guests who tell stories that often revolve around characters
such as villains, victims, and heroes. These stories, or anecdotes, are usually emotional and appeal to the
audience by tugging at their heartstrings. Media personalities (heroes) often strive to defend the “weak” (children
as victims) against the strong (“big pharma” as villains). Anecdotes make for great entertainment because a
function of media—either traditional or social—is to entertain, thus resulting in confusion for a public trying to
distinguish medicine from quackery or science from pseudoscience.
Recall from the videos you viewed that in a scientific study, a hypothesis—an exploratory supposition that can be
tested—is formulated after identifying a problem or study area about which one has asked several questions.
Experiments and/or studies are then constructed and conducted using appropriate controls and variables to test
the hypothesis. Once data is generated, it is evaluated in an objective manner, conclusions are drawn, and the
hypothesis is either supported or rejected and reformulated. Although often presented in a linear fashion, steps of
the scientific method may circle back to the hypothesis or experimental details for modification as necessary. It is
important that experimental results be reproduced by others in the particular scientific field; in other words,
independent confirmation of the study’s conclusions must take place—thus science is “self-correctable.” If a
study/experiment cannot be repeated, the experimental conclusions are called into question, requiring further
investigation. Unfortunately, social media and network TV shows often fall into the single study trap, reporting
only a preliminary study without following up on confirming or conflicting studies, and thus failing the
repeatability test.

Questions
1. The Chit Chat with Carol Conley talk show hosted two guests. Which guest(s), Dr. Amy Ashton or Mr.
Josh Jenkins, seemed to discuss details from a scientific perspective? Which guest(s) discussed the
details from a pseudoscience perspective? Provide a rationale for your determination.

Dr. Amy Ashton discussed details from a scientific perspective, since she was quoting reputable sources and statistics,
while Mr. Jenkins discussed details from a pseudoscience perspective, as he used information from the internet, social
media and anecdotal evidence, which are not actual facts.

2. Was any empirical evidence (data) presented during the talk show? If the answer is yes, summarize the
details.

Yes, empirical evidence was presented during the show by Dr. Amy Ashton. Dr. Ashton begins her argument by
saying that parents should not fear vaccinating their children because vaccine value as a public health initiative has
been demonstrated via application of the scientific method. Later, she states in response to Mr. Jenkins opinion on the
MMR vaccine and the diseases it treats, that in 2014 approximately 115,000 people died from measles around the
world, most of which were under the age of 5, and that the rubella virus does pose grave health threat to the fetuses of
pregnant mothers. Furthermore, she states that in 2014 over 12,000 children were diagnosed with measles just in
Angola, which is a small country. She then talks about how vaccinating people results in herd/community immunity,
allowing for unvaccinated people to benefit. All her points are justified by research and the scientific method, unlike
Mr. Jenkin’s points.

3. Did any of the guests share stories or anecdotes to support their statements? If so, identify the guest(s)
and the associated details in his/her (their) story.

“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Page 2

Finer
 NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING
Yes, Mr. Jenkins entirely relied on stories and anecdotes to justify hisINargument.
SCIENCE Mr. Jenkins begins by stating that all
of his “evidence” comes from personal experience, through talking with various individuals, reading posts on
Facebook and Twitter, and reading various blogs on the internet. Ultimately, after all his “research”, he concluded that
some vaccines do more harm than good. Furthermore, he claims that his son was diagnosed with autism shortly after
his MMR vaccination, so he reasons that the MMR vaccine/vaccines in general are somehow connected to children
being diagnosed with autism (however, much research shows that there is no connection between the two). He then
states that this evidence combined with information that he had read, stated that vaccines contain mercury compounds
that have something called thimerosal that can cause brain damage, once again, this is not valid evidence. Later, he
also downplays the harm that diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella have on people, saying that “Measles
only causes a rash as does rubella”, because of his own personal experience with mumps as a child. He then continues
by stating that he has known several parents who refused MMR vaccinations for their children, and that their kids
have still never had measles.

“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Page 3

Finer
 4. Read the three Facebook posts in the Introduction to the case. If possible, in each post (1, 2, and 3), identify
the victim, the villain, and the hero. If one or more roles are missing in the post, provide suggestions for
individuals or groups that could function as the missing characters.
 Injecting newborns and infants with disease and neurotoxins is disgusting science that injures millions every year...
Shame on all of you and your souls.
o Victim: Children/Babies
o Villain: Vaccines (disease and neurotoxins)
o Hero: Anti-Vaxxers (Those who choose not to expose the “horrors” of vaccination to their children)
 Poor baby…. Forget those natural immunities we got the good stuff right here in this syringe.
o Victim: Children/Babies
o Villain: Vaccines (good stuff right here in this syringe)
o Hero: Natural immunities
 I am sorry to see you unnecessarily putting your kid at risk by responding to faux science and propaganda.
o Victim: Children/Babies
o Villain: Vaccines (a result of faux science and propaganda)
o Hero: Anti-Vaxxers (Those who choose not to expose the “horrors” of vaccination to their children)

5. Do the individual posts in the Introduction reflect unwarranted opinions, anecdotes, or statements
resulting from analysis of empirical data?

They all reflect unwarranted opinions, which are entirely anecdotal and not supported by any reputable data.

6. Characterize each post (1, 2, and 3) as either science (related) or pseudoscience (related). Explain your
choice.

All the posts are pseudoscience since they do not have any empirical evidence or reputable sources backing up their
statements.

7. Another Facebook follower of Zuckerberg’s posted the following comment:

How about you do the research yourself? This is doable. Compare existing data and see if there is a higher
instance of vaccinated kids that get autism. Say you find that 3 percent of kids who get vaccinated get
autism and 1 percent of kids who do not get vaccinated get autism. Then you would have found the proof
that makes you right.
a. Is there a hypothesis (either stated or implied) in the above post? If yes, then identify the hypothesis.
If vaccines result in a higher chance of children being diagnosed with autism over children who were not vaccinated,
then vaccines cause a higher probability of children being diagnosed with autism.

b. Briefly describe the analysis of data you would perform to test your hypothesis.
I would read research articles from reputable sources that discuss the connections between autism and vaccines, and
then I would critically analyze research articles claiming that there are some connections. Afterwards, I will perform
my own experiment, in which I will take a large sample of children, and then split the sample into two equal groups.
One group remains unvaccinated, while the other group gets vaccinated. After a certain amount of time, I would
record the details of parents claiming that their child is expressing autistic behavior, or any behavior relating to mental
disorders.
 c. Identify the acceptable limits (statistics) of your analysis. What difference (vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated) indicates a significant connection between vaccines and autism (1%, 5%, 10%)? What
tools do you use to determine this number? (For a quick reference on statistical significance, see:
<http://www.dummies.com/ education/math/statistics/what-a-p-value-tells-you-about-statistical-
data/>)

The acceptable limits of my analysis would be statistics indicating at least 5% difference between the percentages of
vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children to be certain that there is a connection between vaccines and autism. I would
calculate this by using p-Values.

d. Assume that your hypothesis has been supported by your data and analysis. What additional
information/ details would be necessary to gain acceptance as a legitimate scientific study?

I will create a study report that would have reproducible results, valid conclusions and valid evidence. I will also
ensure that my report reflects all aspects of the scientific method, and I will ensure that my sources are mentioned.
 Part II – Political Discussions
In the vigorously contested primary election for the 2016 Republican U.S. presidential nominee, questions
about vaccines were asked in light of the measles outbreak originating in California at the time. What
follows are some soundbites/tweets from three of the candidates:
Donald J Trump@realDonald
You take this little beautiful baby, and you pump — I mean, it looks just like it is meant for a horse, not
for a child, and we had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, 2-years-old, beautiful
child went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick,
now is autistic. –Sept 2015
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) (speaking to an interviewer)
• I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental
disorders after vaccines. I am not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing. But I think a
parent should have some input. –CNBC, Feb 2, 2015
Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO
• So, a parent has to make that trade-off. I think when we’re talking about some of these more esoteric
immunizations, then I think absolutely a parent should have a choice and a school district shouldn't be able to
say, “sorry, your kid can’t come to school” for a disease that’s not communicable, that’s not contagious, and
where there really isn’t any proof that they’re necessary at this point. –Iowa Freedom Summit, Des Moines,
Iowa, Jan 24, 2015

Questions
1. Are the speakers presenting empirical evidence, anecdotes, or unwarranted opinions? Support
your identification with details from each post.

All the speakers are not presenting any empirical evidence, and most of their information is likely from anecdotes and
stories.

2. In her post, Carly Fiorina uses the terms “contagious,” “communicable,” and “esoteric.”
a. Provide a scientific definition for the first two terms and a dictionary definition of the third term.

Contagious: capable of being transmitted from one human to another human, animal to animal, or between
nonhuman animals and people, via direct or indirect contact.
Communicable: capable of being easily communicated or transmitted.
Esoteric: understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite

b. View Table 1 (next page) regarding recommended childhood vaccinations. Based upon your
definitions and information in the table, characterize each vaccine-preventable disease listed in Table
1 into one of the following categories: non-communicable, communicable, contagious, and esoteric.

All the diseases listed below are contagious and communicable between people.

3. Given your analysis of details (answers to questions and vocabulary definitions), determine if the
statements attributed to each of the three politicians reflect either established science or pseudoscience.
Support your conclusions.

All the statements attributed to each of the three politicians reflect pseudoscience. Trump incorrectly draws a
connection between vaccines and autism with only anecdotal evidence and stories, and the same can be said for Sen.
Rand Paul who also incorrectly draws a connection between vaccines and mental disorders. Also, Carly Fiorina’s
claims that people should be given the choice whether to vaccinate their child since not all the diseases are
communicable, contagious or even currently an issue. However, ALL vaccine-preventable diseases are in fact both
contagious and communicable, and are an issue all over the world, so Carly Fiorina’s claims are not valid. Altogether,
although the politicians’ statements seem believable and reasonable, all of their claims are not backed-up by science,
and as a result their statements are pseudoscience
Table 1. Childhood Diseases and Available Preventative Vaccines. CDC.goV: <http://www.cdc.goV/Vaccines/schedules/easy-to-
read/child.html#print>
Disease Vaccin Disease spread Disease symptoms Disease complications
e by
Chickenpox Varicella vaccine Air, direct Rash, tiredness, headache, Infected blisters, bleeding
protects against contact fever disorders, encephalitis (brain
chickenpox. swelling), pneumonia (infection in
the lungs)
Diphtheria DTaP* vaccine Air, direct Sore throat, mild fever, Swelling of the heart muscle, heart
protects against contact weak- ness, swollen failure, coma, paralysis, death
diphtheria. glands in neck
Hib Hib vaccine Air, direct May be no symptoms Meningitis (infection of the
protects against contact unless bacteria enter covering around the brain and
Haemophilus the blood spinal cord), intellectual
infuenzae type b. disability, epiglottitis (life-
threatening infection that can
block the windpipe and lead to
serious breathing problems),
pneumonia (infection in the
lungs), death
Hepatitis A*** HepA vaccine Direct contact, May be no symptoms, Liver failure, arthralgia (joint pain),
protects against contaminated fever, stomach pain, loss kidney, pancreatic, and blood
hepatitis A. food or water of appetite, fatigue, disorders
vomiting, jaundice
(yellowing of skin and
eyes), dark urine
Hepatitis B HepB vaccine Contact with May be no symptoms, Chronic liver infection, liver failure,
protects against blood or body fever, headache, liver cancer
hepatitis B. fluids weakness, vomiting,
jaundice (yellowing of
skin and eyes), joint
pain
Flu Flu vaccine Air, direct Fever, muscle pain, Pneumonia (infection in the lungs)
protects against contact sore throat, cough,
infuenza. extreme fatigue
Measles MMR** vaccine Air, direct Rash, fever, cough, Encephalitis (brain swelling),
protects against contact runny nose, pinkeye pneumonia (infection in the lungs),
measles. death
Mumps MMR**vaccine Air, direct Swollen salivary glands Meningitis (infection of the
protects against contact (un- der the jaw), fever, covering around the brain and
mumps. headache, tiredness, spinal cord), encephalitis (brain
muscle pain swelling), infamma- tion of
testicles or ovaries, deafness
Pertussis DTaP* vaccine protects Air, direct Severe cough, runny Pneumonia (infection in the lungs),
against pertussis contact nose, apnea (a pause in death
(whoop- ing cough). breathing in infants)
Polio IPV vaccine Air, direct May be no Paralysis, death
protects against contact, through symptoms, sore
polio. the mouth throat, fever, nausea,
headache
Pneumococc PCV vaccine protects Air, direct May be no symptoms, Bacteremia (blood infection),
al Disease against contact pneumonia (infection in meningitis (infection of the
pneumococcus. the lungs) covering around the brain and
spinal cord), death
Rotavirus RV vaccine Through the Diarrhea, fever, vomiting Severe diarrhea, dehydration
protects against mouth
rotavirus.
Rubella MMR** vaccine Air, direct Children infected with Very serious in pregnant women—
protects against contact rubella virus sometimes can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth,
rubella. have a rash, fever, premature delivery, birth defects
swollen lymph nodes
 Tetanus DTaP* vaccine Exposure Stiffness in neck and Broken bones, breathing difficulty,
protects against through cuts in abdominal muscles, death
tetanus. skin difficulty swallowing,
muscle spasms, fever

* DTaP combines protection against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

** MMR combines protection against measles, mumps, and rubella.
*** Hepatitis A vaccine not a required childhood vaccine in the US, although recommended
for travelers. Last updated January 26, 2015 • CS245366-A CDC.GOV
 Part III – What Is a Vaccine and What Is in It?
Before attempting this section, review the material presented in the video and website below.
• How a Vaccine Works. Running time: 7:18 min. Created by MITK12 Videos, 2012.
<https://youtu.be/7MaiT5w5NWQ>
• How Vaccines Work. Interactive web site created by The College of Physicians of Philadelphia that provides
an introduction to cells of the immune response.
<https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/how-vaccines-work>
In the introduction to the case, several posts critical of vaccination were provided. Post #1 mentions injection
with “neurotoxins.” And while it is difficult to determine the source of the poster’s information, the reference to
neurotoxins may be linked to a vaccine component called thimerosal (mentioned in the Chit Chat with Carol
Conley video), a methyl mercury compound formerly used as a preservative in multi-use vials of vaccine. As of
2003, required child- hood vaccines in the United States were free of thimerosal (infuenza vaccine is an exception
but is not a required vaccine for school entry in most states). In many other countries the compound was removed
in the early 1990s.
The first post in the introduction also refers to vaccines containing “disease.” Vaccines contain modified or
attenuated whole pathogens (infectious agents such as bacteria and viruses) or subcellular components of
pathogens that are unable to cause disease. The modified pathogens, or their components, serve as antigens to
stimulate an immune response to protect the vaccine recipient from disease.
Post #3 in the introduction suggests babies have “natural immunities” to the infectious agents that vaccines
protect against. If humans have a protective response that can occur naturally without medical intervention,
why does the medical community overwhelmingly support vaccination programs?

Questions
1. Post #1 in the introduction identifies vaccines as containing “disease.” How was use of the term “disease”
by the poster incorrect with regard to vaccine composition?

The vaccine includes parts of the disease, or a weaker, less-harmful version of the disease. This mimics the disease
but does not harm the body. It also allows for the body to produce memory cells for future use against the disease. The
vaccine is meant to strengthen the body’s response to the disease to allow for a quick recovery, or even immunization,
however, the actual disease is not injected into the body which would obviously be very harmful.

2. In spite of the removal of thimerosal from many childhood vaccines, several scientific reports have
concluded that the incidence of autism has continued to rise regardless of vaccine composition.
a. Given this information, formulate a hypothesis.

If the incidence of autism in children continues to rise despite the removal thimerosal from vaccines, then thimerosal
does not have an impact on autism, and instead other factors are contributors.

b. Does the following scientific study on autism incidence support your hypothesis?
Hurley, Anne M., D. Mina-Tadrous, Elizabeth S. Miller. 2010. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and
autism: a review of recent epidemiologic studies. J Pediatric Pharmacology Ter. 15(3): 173–181,
<https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/>.

There is no evidence that reputes my hypothesis; therefore, my hypothesis stands.

 c. Some parents say they opted out of MMR vaccine for their children because it contains the
mercury compound thimerosal. Identify the components of the MMR vaccine. Does it now or did
it in the past contain thimerosal?

Active Ingredients: weakened forms of the measles, mumps, and rubella viruses.
Inactive Ingredients: sorbitol, sucrose, hydrolyzed gelatin, recombinant human albumin, fetal bovine serum, other
buffer and media ingredients, neomycin.

The MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal in the first place

3. What are “natural immunities”? Are these the same as immune responses generated as a result of
vaccination? (Refer to the material presented in the two links at the top of this page to review the cells and
proteins involved in an immune response.)

Natural immunity is achieved naturally after an successful recovery after an encounter with a disease, unlike vaccines
which trigger the same immune response, but do not expose the body to the full-fledged disease, and rather inject the
body with a weaker, or dead version of the same disease. As a result, vaccines are much safer than attempting to
achieve natural immunity, because it greatly lessens the risk of getting sick.
Part IV – It’s About the Herd
In response to the 2014–2015 measles “outbreak” in California that originated in Disneyland, Governor Jerry
Brown signed a bill (SB 277) that “eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions” to required school
vaccines. Consequently, only documented health objections are accepted to opt-out of childhood vaccines
required for admission to public school in California. Home schooled students remain exempt. During
deliberation of the bill, vaccine compliance supporters found a good example for their cause, seven-year-old
Rhett Krawitt, a leukemia patient who was not able to be protected through routine vaccination because of his
weakened immune system. Ryan’s parents boldly asked school authorities to ban unvaccinated children from
school attendance because they posed a threat to Rhett’s health. The entire family later testified in support of SB
277.
Rhett Krawitt’s situation emphasized that the community should not only be concerned about individual children
and vaccine preventable disease but also about members of the community who need to be protected but can’t
receive vaccination. If a majority (for measles it is 95% but the percentage differs for various infectious diseases)
of a population is vaccinated, infectious agents cannot find susceptible hosts, thus outbreaks typically die out in a
short time frame and morbidity and mortality are kept low. This is known as herd immunity (also called
community immunity).
But social media posts reveal that not everyone agrees on or accepts the important role of herd immunity, as
strongly stated in the blog post below.
The fact is that CDC works for big pharma/special interests not public safety as the CDC whistle blower
documents prove. the fact is that this is about money not public safety. the fact is that some of these
vaccines have little benefit/effectiveness and serious risks. the fact is real natural immunity and vaccine
derived immunity are not the same thing at all and our babies would be protected from many/most
infectious diseases if their mothers were allowed to have natural immunity and pass it to their babies in
breast milk, and we had true herd immunity through adults who had lifelong natural immunity. The fact is
vaccine induced immunity typically does not hold for long and often misses the target, and the neurotoxins
and foreign ingredients/DNA, etc. are causing a generation of allergic/arthritic/immune system damaged
children and adults. The fact is immunocompromised children can die from cold or flu viruses and bacteria
so there is always risk when they leave their homes and go into a school/ public setting and no amount
of vaccination will remove those risks. –Aug 2015
Let’s consider the above post in the context of previously presented information and Table 2, which displays
information on vaccine efficacy in Great Britain (England and Wales).

Table 2. Impact of Selected Vaccine Introduction on Disease Incidence in Great Britain 1.

Vaccine Pre-vaccine
Diseas Cases % Location
Introduction Cases2
e 2014 Reduction
Year
194 Diphtheria 50,804 1 99.9% Eng./Wales
2
195 Pertussis 92,407 3,506 96.0% Eng./Wales
7
196 Measles 460,407 130 99.9% Eng./Wales
8
199 Haemophilus infuenzae B infection 862 12 99.0% Eng.
2
199 Group C invasive meningococcal 883 28 97.0% Eng.
9 disease
200 Invasive pneumococcal disease 3,552 858 76.0% Eng./Wales
6
1
Souce: Vaccine Knowledge Project, Oxford Vaccine Group. <http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vaccines>
2
Cases per year in the year prior to vaccine introduction.
Questions
1. What is a fact? How are scientific facts established?
A fact is something that is known or proved to be true. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation
or measurement by experiments or other means.

2. Does this section’s blog post reflect scientific facts, unwarranted opinions, or anecdotes? Provide
specific examples of each in the post if you find them.

This section’s blog post entirely reflects unwarranted and false opinions. Its ironic that they start many of their
sentences with “that fact is”, when there no fact in their argument to begin with. Therefore, the person who wrote this
blog post is only expressing their opinions on the matter, without any research or facts.

3. Does the blog post emphasize villains, victims, and heroes? If so, identify and list them.

Villains: The CDC, and its supposed connections with Big Pharma, and vaccinations.
Victims: Children/babies
Heroes: The anti-vaccination community & natural immunity

4. Identify one to two statements in the blog post that you can refute using scientific data from Table 2.
Provide details/data from the table to support your repudiation.

The person states that “the fact is that some of these vaccines have little benefit/effectiveness”, which can easily
disproven by data from Table 2, showing that the percent reduction in cases of a disease can be up to 99.9%, measles
for example.

5. Speculate on the validity of the following statement from the post: “Our babies would be protected from
many/ most infectious diseases if their mothers were allowed to have natural immunity and pass it to their
babies in breast milk, and we had true herd immunity through adults who had life-long natural immunity.”

First of all, natural immunity is very difficult and dangerous to achieve, and vaccination is the best option. Second,
immunity does not simply just pass on to babies through breastmilk, that is absurd. This claim is bogus and has no
evidence to support itself with.

6. To develop “natural” immunity as described by the poster, one would likely need to develop an infectious
disease. Discuss/brainstorm ideas concerning the public health and economic implications of treating
disease in the population versus vaccinating the population.

If people were to develop infectious diseases, by the time they seek medical help, they individual may have spread the
disease to many others. Furthermore, during their stay in the hospital, the person also risks infecting the doctor and
any other patients at the hospital. Overall, it has many negative public health and economic implications. However, if
people were vaccinated, the spread of the disease would have drastically decreased, and as a result, be a good thing
for the economy and public health.
Conclusion
In conclusion, readers can easily find media posts regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines as well as other
debated scientific topics. Learning to sort unwarranted opinions and anecdotes from empirical evidence attained
through application of the scientific method will help you to become a scientifically savvy consumer who can
make sound personal decisions based upon science rather than pseudoscience.
Here is one final test to check your ability to sort science from pseudoscience. The two posts below make
use of unwarranted opinions, anecdotes, heroes, villains, victims, and empirical data.
“We don’t need 40 stinking’ vaccines, get it? Nobody does, and especially they don’t need them when they are
2 years old. I’ve seen what they did to my niece. Full of mercury and other chemicals and drugs and viruses,
they cause autism and other disasters in all races of babies. Big Pharma creates drugs to make money.
Helping people in any way is down on the list; it’s there, because it has to be, but it’s not what drives the
industry. Cancer has been cured many times, many times over. Thousands die being vaccinated for diseases
(sic) they have one chance in 5 hundred million of ever catching anyway.”
Response to the above post:
“‘Thousands die being vaccinated for diseases (sic) they have one chance in 5 hundred million of ever
catching anyway.’ Really? Could you please provide a citation showing that thousands of deaths are caused
by vaccines? Where is the chance of getting a disease just one chance out of five hundred million? The USA has a
population of a bit over three hundred million, yet there are people getting mumps, measles, pertussis, rubella,
tetanus, chicken pox, Hib, etc. So how do you figure out the odds of not getting a disease, please provide the data
and source of data.”
Which post reflects pseudoscience and which attempts to present or request scientific evidence?
The first post is the epitome of pseudoscience, filled with misinformation and opinions; however, the second post
questions the validity of the first post’s claims while using some empirical data. The first post paints “Big Pharma”
as the villain and all those taking vaccines as the victims. No empirical data was utilized to validate the first post’s
argument, therefore, in response, the second post requests the first poster to provide some valid scientific evidence
to prove the first poster’s wild accusations. For example, the first post includes easily disprovable information such
as, “Cancer has been cured many times, many times over,” and “Thousands die being vaccinated for diseases (sic) they
have one chance in 5 hundred million of ever catching anyway.” There is simply no evidence stating that cancer has
been cured multiple times, or that the chance of getting a disease is 1 out of 500,000,000. Furthermore, her main
argument that vaccines lead to autism in children is once again easily disproven by many reputable studies and
experiments, which all conclude that there is no connection between the two.