SCI 120 Vaccines and Vitriol Essay

Introduction –Vaccines and Vitriol

Couples have babies, whether adopted or birthed, and raise children. Th at’s not typically national news, unless of

course you are Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. Zuckerberg, who is chairman, CEO, and co-founder of

Facebook, has over 90 million followers and his every personal and professional move is discussed by national media

and followers alike. In 2016, when Mark announced that baby Max was ready for her fi rst 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 (,

com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/mark-zuckerberg-angers-anti-vaxxers-with-photo-of-baby-at-doctors-offi cegetting-

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 scientifi c 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.

Th ese individuals have failed to apply the scientifi c 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 scientifi c method.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
Vaccines, Social Media
and the Public Health
by
Kim R. Finer
Department of Biological Sciences
Kent State University at Stark, OH
?
Introduction –Vaccines and Vitriol
Couples have babies, whether adopted or birthed, and raise children. That’s not typically national news, unless of
course you are Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. Zuckerberg, who is chairman, CEO, and co-founder of
Facebook, has over 90 million followers and his every personal and professional move is discussed by national media
and followers alike. In 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 (, ).
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).
• Video clip “interview show” (original production) Chit Chat with Carol Conley (running time: 6:58 min).
.
Case copyright held by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
Originally published October 2, 2017. Please see our usage guidelines, which outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this
work. Licnesed image © Aleutie | Dreamstime, id 56414815.
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 defined 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.
2. Was any empirical evidence (data) presented during the talk show? If the answer is yes, summarize the details.
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. Finer
Page 2
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
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.
5. Do the individual posts in the Introduction reflect unwarranted opinions, anecdotes, or statements resulting
from analysis of empirical data?
6. Characterize each post (1, 2, and 3) as either science (related) or pseudoscience (related). Explain your choice.
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.
b. Briefly describe the analysis of data you would perform to test your hypothesis.
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: )
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?
“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Finer
Page 3
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Finer
Page 4
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
Table 1. Childhood Diseases and Available Preventative Vaccines. CDC.gov:
Disease
Vaccine
Disease spread by
Disease symptoms
Disease complications
Chickenpox
Varicella vaccine protects
against chickenpox.
Air, direct contact
Rash, tiredness, headache,
fever
Infected blisters, bleeding disorders,
encephalitis (brain swelling), pneumonia
(infection in the lungs)
Diphtheria
DTaP* vaccine protects
against diphtheria.
Air, direct contact
Sore throat, mild fever, weakness, swollen glands in neck
Swelling of the heart muscle, heart failure,
coma, paralysis, death
Hib
Hib vaccine protects
against Haemophilus
influenzae type b.
Air, direct contact
May be no symptoms unless
bacteria enter the blood
Meningitis (infection of the covering
around the brain and spinal cord),
intellectual disability, epiglottitis (lifethreatening infection that can block the
windpipe and lead to serious breathing
problems), pneumonia (infection in the
lungs), death
Hepatitis A***
HepA vaccine protects
against hepatitis A.
Direct contact,
contaminated food
or water
May be no symptoms,
fever, stomach pain, loss of
appetite, fatigue, vomiting,
jaundice (yellowing of skin
and eyes), dark urine
Liver failure, arthralgia (joint pain), kidney,
pancreatic, and blood disorders
Hepatitis B
HepB vaccine protects
against hepatitis B.
Contact with blood
or body fluids
May be no symptoms, fever,
headache, weakness, vomiting, jaundice (yellowing of
skin and eyes), joint pain
Chronic liver infection, liver failure, liver
cancer
Flu
Flu vaccine protects
against influenza.
Air, direct contact
Fever, muscle pain, sore
throat, cough, extreme
fatigue
Pneumonia (infection in the lungs)
Measles
MMR** vaccine protects
against measles.
Air, direct contact
Rash, fever, cough, runny
nose, pinkeye
Encephalitis (brain swelling), pneumonia
(infection in the lungs), death
Mumps
MMR**vaccine protects
against mumps.
Air, direct contact
Swollen salivary glands (under the jaw), fever, headache,
tiredness, muscle pain
Meningitis (infection of the covering
around the brain and spinal cord) ,
encephalitis (brain swelling), inflammation of testicles or ovaries, deafness
Pertussis
DTaP* vaccine protects
against pertussis (whooping cough).
Air, direct contact
Severe cough, runny nose,
apnea (a pause in breathing
in infants)
Pneumonia (infection in the lungs), death
Polio
IPV vaccine protects
against polio.
Air, direct contact,
through the
mouth
May be no symptoms,
sore throat, fever, nausea,
headache
Paralysis, death
Pneumococcal
Disease
PCV vaccine protects
against pneumococcus.
Air, direct contact
May be no symptoms,
pneumonia (infection in the
lungs)
Bacteremia (blood infection), meningitis
(infection of the covering around the
brain and spinal cord), death
Rotavirus
RV vaccine protects
against rotavirus.
Through the
mouth
Diarrhea, fever, vomiting
Severe diarrhea, dehydration
Rubella
MMR** vaccine protects
against rubella.
Air, direct contact
Children infected with
rubella virus sometimes have
a rash, fever, swollen lymph
nodes
Very serious in pregnant women—can
lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, premature
delivery, birth defects
Tetanus
DTaP* vaccine protects
against tetanus.
Exposure through
cuts in skin
Stiffness in neck and
abdominal muscles, difficulty
swallowing, muscle spasms,
fever
Broken bones, breathing difficulty, death
* 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
“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Finer
Page 5
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
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.
• How Vaccines Work. Interactive web site created by The College of Physicians of Philadelphia that provides an
introduction to cells of the immune response.
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 childhood vaccines in the United States were free of thimerosal (influenza 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?
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.
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 Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 15(3): 173–181, .
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?
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.)
“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Finer
Page 6
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
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 life long 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 Britain1.
Vaccine Introduction Year
Disease
Pre-vaccine
Cases2
Cases 2014
% Reduction
Location
1942
Diphtheria
50,804
1
99.9%
Eng./Wales
1957
Pertussis
92,407
3,506
96.0%
Eng./Wales
1968
Measles
460,407
130
99.9%
Eng./Wales
1992
Haemophilus influenzae B infection
862
12
99.0%
Eng.
1999
Group C invasive meningococcal disease
883
28
97.0%
Eng.
2006
Invasive pneumococcal disease
3,552
858
76.0%
Eng./Wales
1
Souce: Vaccine Knowledge Project, Oxford Vaccine Group.
2
Cases per year in the year prior to vaccine introduction.
Questions
1. What is a fact? How are scientific facts established?
“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Finer
Page 7
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
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.
3. Does the blog post emphasize villains, victims, and heroes? If so, identify and list them.
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.
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.”
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.
“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Finer
Page 8
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE
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 stinkin’ 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 dieases (sic) they have one chance in 5 hundred
million of ever catching anyway.”
Response to the above post:
“ ‘Thousands die being vaccinated for dieases (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?
“Vaccines, Social Media and the Public Health” by Kim R. Finer
Page 9
Final Capstone Assignment Rubric
Part 1 – Science vs Pseudoscience
• Write a detailed description of the scientific method. (5-6 sentences)
• What is a p-value and how do you calculate it?
• Detailed answers to Question #7
Score (10 points):______________
Part 2 – Political Discussions
• Detailed answers to Questions 1-3
Score (10 points):______________
Part 3 – What Is a Vaccine and What Is in It?
• Detailed description of how vaccines work.
• Detailed answers to Questions 1-3
Score (15 points):______________
Part 4 – It’s About the Herd
• Detailed answers to Questions 1-6
Score (10 points):______________