Comments on: Health Marketing, Risk Communication, and the Media http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/08/07/health-marketing-risk-communication-and-the-media/ A Forum for Parents from Parents Wed, 09 May 2012 01:05:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: wallacesmum http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/08/07/health-marketing-risk-communication-and-the-media/comment-page-1/#comment-194 wallacesmum Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:26:43 +0000 http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=160#comment-194 In my mind, these discussions betray an underlying insecurity about the vaccine program. I find it hard to believe that we are in a straight-up debate over the facts, when the pro-vax policy makers feel the need to discuss agitprop. If vaccines are so great, why don't the facts suffice to tell the story? In my mind, these discussions betray an underlying insecurity about the vaccine program. I find it hard to believe that we are in a straight-up debate over the facts, when the pro-vax policy makers feel the need to discuss agitprop. If vaccines are so great, why don’t the facts suffice to tell the story?

]]> By: concerned parent http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/08/07/health-marketing-risk-communication-and-the-media/comment-page-1/#comment-163 concerned parent Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:34:08 +0000 http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=160#comment-163 Bravo for the piece on risk communication. Page 15 of the Institute of Medicine’s 1997 pamphlet entitled “Risk Communication and Vaccination” describes Vaccine Information Statements (“VIS”) as “written at a fifth to seventh grade reading level”. According to the US Census Bureau, over 80% of the US adult population have earned a high school diploma and over 25% have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. So what is the rationale for the one to two page, dumbed-down VIS’s, versus the 25+ page vaccine package inserts which contain detailed risk disclosures? It is not about the presumed reading level of the population, but about slanting the information such that the risks of the disease appear greater than the risks of the vaccination. It’s about marketing, which is simply a euphemism for propaganda. For those of you who think that the use of the P-word is stretching it, take a look at the Webster’s Dictionary definitions for the word propaganda: 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. The CDC's and AAP's underestimation of the the intelligence of the general public is one of the reasons why vaccination has become such a controversial subject. Intelligent parents are no longer merely relying upon the pro-vaccination propaganda disseminated by institutions. It would behoove these institutions to realize that the continued proliferation of recommended vaccines will only fuel further questioning and less compliance. Here's a link to IOM’s booklet: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5861&page=R1 Bravo for the piece on risk communication.

Page 15 of the Institute of Medicine’s 1997 pamphlet entitled “Risk Communication and Vaccination” describes Vaccine Information Statements (“VIS”) as “written at a fifth to seventh grade reading level”. According to the US Census Bureau, over 80% of the US adult population have earned a high school diploma and over 25% have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. So what is the rationale for the one to two page, dumbed-down VIS’s, versus the 25+ page vaccine package inserts which contain detailed risk disclosures? It is not about the presumed reading level of the population, but about slanting the information such that the risks of the disease appear greater than the risks of the vaccination. It’s about marketing, which is simply a euphemism for propaganda. For those of you who think that the use of the P-word is stretching it, take a look at the Webster’s Dictionary definitions for the word propaganda: 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

The CDC’s and AAP’s underestimation of the the intelligence of the general public is one of the reasons why vaccination has become such a controversial subject. Intelligent parents are no longer merely relying upon the pro-vaccination propaganda disseminated by institutions. It would behoove these institutions to realize that the continued proliferation of recommended vaccines will only fuel further questioning and less compliance. Here’s a link to IOM’s booklet: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5861&page=R1

]]>