+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: How/Why do doctors and scientists fall for the woo?

  1. #1
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default How/Why do doctors and scientists fall for the woo?

    Actress Mayim Bialik recently wrote this piece, in which she explains why, among other things, she has not put either of her children in speech, occupational, or physical therapy, despite the fact that they are apparently fairly seriously developmentally delayed. According to the article, her attitude is part of a greater parenting philosophy that all children need to develop at their own pace. She is heavily into natural parenting, and does not vaccinate. Of course, it's not surprising to hear of celebrities who are not on the cutting edge of science, but Mayim Bialik has a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA.

    There are plenty of well-known MDs such as Dr. Robert Sears, Dr. Jay Gordon and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who also eschew vaccines and promote other types of pseudoscience or outright anti-scientific practices such as Reiki.

    So my question is, how or why do people with strong educations in the sciences fall for theories that clearly have no scientific support? Some of them (like Andrew Wakefield, the British doctor who falsified data to make it seem as though the MMR vaccination is responsible for Autism) do it for financial gain. But I really think some of them are sincere...and clearly Mayim Bialik isn't getting rich by not getting her sons the therapies that could help them. So what causes them to fall for the woo?

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Granola crunchy philosophy is not restricted to the uneducated is my theory. I know that is dismissing a large subject in a simple sentence but everyone has their pet beliefs.

    I'm very much in favor of stopping all whaling now but that is not a common belief sadly. It allows me to support acts against whalers that generally I would not support against any other groups but maybe Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

    One could argue all religious belief falls into the same category. Logically religion makes no sense but it is still followed by the majority of people in and out of science.

    I would guess the anti-vacc people among those with doctorates in Science and Medicine are probably as rare as those that do not believe Global Climate Change is related to human activity. There is a clear percentage that do not buy the prevailing theory but it is a small minority.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Granola crunchy philosophy is not restricted to the uneducated is my theory. I know that is dismissing a large subject in a simple sentence but everyone has their pet beliefs.
    I would say that it is not unlikely that some intelligent/educated people, since they know they are smart, can easily start to think that they know better than the mundane, corporate masses. Because they are very special, and have much more discerning insight.

  4. #4
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I went and looked at her Wiki article and it turns out she is a Vegan, so the Granola crunchy philosophy ties are strong in Mayim Bialik at least. Most Vegans I know are actually smarter than average and that is probably true overall in the US at least.

  5. #5
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Granola crunchy philosophy is not restricted to the uneducated is my theory. I know that is dismissing a large subject in a simple sentence but everyone has their pet beliefs.

    I'm very much in favor of stopping all whaling now but that is not a common belief sadly. It allows me to support acts against whalers that generally I would not support against any other groups but maybe Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

    One could argue all religious belief falls into the same category. Logically religion makes no sense but it is still followed by the majority of people in and out of science.
    Most people who are well-educated in the sciences and who happen to be Christian or Jewish, don't replace scientific fact with their religion. For instance, people who are well-educated in the sciences don't tend to believe in Creationism anymore. This sort of new-agey belief tends to supplant science, vs. just being a way of giving meaning to everything, the way mainstream religion tends to these days.

    I would guess the anti-vacc people among those with doctorates in Science and Medicine are probably as rare as those that do not believe Global Climate Change is related to human activity. There is a clear percentage that do not buy the prevailing theory but it is a small minority.
    True, but there are enough of both to make you wonder. Maybe they just like being iconoclasts.

  6. #6
    For whom nothing is written. Oliveloaf's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,180

    Default

    There's probably a lot of "not my kids!" going on here, too.

    How could her kids be slow learners? Must be the system, or, in this case, unrealistic expectations.
    "I won't kill for money, and I won't marry for it. Other than that, I'm open to just about anything."

    -Jim Rockford

  7. #7
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Orual View post
    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Granola crunchy philosophy is not restricted to the uneducated is my theory. I know that is dismissing a large subject in a simple sentence but everyone has their pet beliefs.
    I would say that it is not unlikely that some intelligent/educated people, since they know they are smart, can easily start to think that they know better than the mundane, corporate masses. Because they are very special, and have much more discerning insight.
    This could be it, too.

  8. #8
    For whom nothing is written. Oliveloaf's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,180

    Default

    I have insight, ergo my kid is brilliant.
    "I won't kill for money, and I won't marry for it. Other than that, I'm open to just about anything."

    -Jim Rockford

  9. #9
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Oliveloaf View post
    I have insight, ergo my kid is brilliant.
    Yeah, but it's not just that...it's that they are so afraid of anything they see as mainstream, or part of the system. And yet...there IS an establishment of scientific and medical thought, without which they couldn't have studied whichever discipline they got their degree in. So, why the rejection of it?

  10. #10
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Before responding directly to the OP, a comment about that article by Bialik: YIKES. I can't imagine UCLA is proud to claim her among their graduates. That article left me reeling. Regardless of whether it is a case of neglect, her parenting (or lack thereof) is certainly is going to lead to bratty kids.

    An example from history of a scientist-with-woo-beliefs is Thomas Edison, who had some rather eccentric ideas about life after death. (See here: http://itcvoices.org/?p=23 ). I have not examined the subject in any detail, but it seems that Edison thought there was an as-yet undiscovered scientific explanation and he was merely "theorizing forward."

    That example may be telling. A good knowledge of science history might be used to justify "woo" beliefs, because there are certainly instances where things that we accept as fact today were considered woo in the past. Germ theory is one - oh, SURE there are little tiny creatures, so small we can't them, and they are making us sick. Riiiiigghhht.

    Despite this instructive history, nanobacteria were not believed possible for a while, IIRC. I remember reading somewhere that the smallest life form believed to be scientifically possible is always, whaddayaknow, the same size as the smallest life form that our most powerful microscope available allows us to see and document.

    In a different area, Alfred Wegener was dismissed as a crackpot - by the scientific establishment - for believing in continental drift/tectonic plates.

    If one is aware of all of the above, and more, and one has a pet theory that doesn't jive with current science, it might be easier to rationalize along the lines of "my idea isn't crazy; someday scientific knowledge will catch up."

    I have to admit to being a little guilty of this myself. Obviously there is no such thing as functional ESP, but I cannot help but think that there is a minute capacity among some people for a little bit of mind-reading/thought projection. Yes, this is a totally woo thing and I am probably laughably wrong. But, I keep thinking that the science behind it - some sort of wave or particle our brains weakly emit - will someday be discovered.

    Please don't lump me with Bialik, though. Shudder.

  11. #11
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Woo??? I have to ask - what is woo?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  12. #12
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Woo is a common internet term for crunchy-granola stuff in general, and particularly spiritual or philosophical beliefs that supplant scientific knowledge.

  13. #13
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Hatshepsut View post
    Before responding directly to the OP, a comment about that article by Bialik: YIKES. I can't imagine UCLA is proud to claim her among their graduates. That article left me reeling. Regardless of whether it is a case of neglect, her parenting (or lack thereof) is certainly is going to lead to bratty kids.

    An example from history of a scientist-with-woo-beliefs is Thomas Edison, who had some rather eccentric ideas about life after death. (See here: http://itcvoices.org/?p=23 ). I have not examined the subject in any detail, but it seems that Edison thought there was an as-yet undiscovered scientific explanation and he was merely "theorizing forward."

    That example may be telling. A good knowledge of science history might be used to justify "woo" beliefs, because there are certainly instances where things that we accept as fact today were considered woo in the past. Germ theory is one - oh, SURE there are little tiny creatures, so small we can't them, and they are making us sick. Riiiiigghhht.

    Despite this instructive history, nanobacteria were not believed possible for a while, IIRC. I remember reading somewhere that the smallest life form believed to be scientifically possible is always, whaddayaknow, the same size as the smallest life form that our most powerful microscope available allows us to see and document.

    In a different area, Alfred Wegener was dismissed as a crackpot - by the scientific establishment - for believing in continental drift/tectonic plates.

    If one is aware of all of the above, and more, and one has a pet theory that doesn't jive with current science, it might be easier to rationalize along the lines of "my idea isn't crazy; someday scientific knowledge will catch up."

    I have to admit to being a little guilty of this myself. Obviously there is no such thing as functional ESP, but I cannot help but think that there is a minute capacity among some people for a little bit of mind-reading/thought projection. Yes, this is a totally woo thing and I am probably laughably wrong. But, I keep thinking that the science behind it - some sort of wave or particle our brains weakly emit - will someday be discovered.

    Please don't lump me with Bialik, though. Shudder.
    I think most people have SOMETHING that they believe that doesn't have a scientific....or even logical...basis. That's probably part of the human condition. But like I said to Jim, I think it's one thing to believe in something supernatural, and another to decide that some area of science isn't true because of it, you know what I mean?

    And, yeah, Mayim Bialik is nuts for several reasons. Sounds like her philosophy is similar to what they call "consensual living," which basically means that kids should be given full autonomy and equal say in what happens in the family, and that any form of reward or punishment is considered coercion. I don't personally know anyone who holds this philosophy, and I don't think I want to.

  14. #14
    my god, he's full of stars... OneCentStamp's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6,993

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Woo??? I have to ask - what is woo?
    "You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."

    find me at Goodreads

  15. #15
    For whom nothing is written. Oliveloaf's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,180

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    And, yeah, Mayim Bialik is nuts for several reasons. Sounds like her philosophy is similar to what they call "consensual living," which basically means that kids should be given full autonomy and equal say in what happens in the family, and that any form of reward or punishment is considered coercion. I don't personally know anyone who holds this philosophy, and I don't think I want to.

    Remember these nut jobs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Dubroff The 7-year-old pilot who crashed in the rain. I recall an interview with her mother after the crash. She was completely oblivious to the fact that it was stupid to send a 7-year-old kid off to fly a plane in a storm, and spoke only in glassy eyed poetic terms about how her daughter was "so at one with the rain." Idiot.
    "I won't kill for money, and I won't marry for it. Other than that, I'm open to just about anything."

    -Jim Rockford

  16. #16
    For whom nothing is written. Oliveloaf's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,180

    Default

    This is the mother's website. She's still a whack job, and a lousy web site builder.

    http://www.lisablairhathaway.com/id3..._for_you__.htm
    "I won't kill for money, and I won't marry for it. Other than that, I'm open to just about anything."

    -Jim Rockford

  17. #17
    my god, he's full of stars... OneCentStamp's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6,993

    Default

    I think that style of writing, disjointed and full of "inappropriate" quotes and random font and CASE CHANGES, as also seen in your average conspiracy theorist's manifesto, is symptomatic of a certain type of thinker.
    "You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."

    find me at Goodreads

  18. #18
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by OneCentStamp View post
    I think that style of writing, disjointed and full of "inappropriate" quotes and random font and CASE CHANGES, as also seen in your average conspiracy theorist's manifesto, is symptomatic of a certain type of thinker.
    Can you elaborate on that?
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 22 Feb 2011 at 01:11 PM.

  19. #19
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Oliveloaf View post
    This is the mother's website. She's still a whack job, and a lousy web site builder.

    http://www.lisablairhathaway.com/id3..._for_you__.htm
    Oh, how funny...she's into Unassisted Childbirth (no doctor or midwife), a common manifestation of this philosophy. Not a smart thing to do, but fits in with the "no one controls me or tells me what to do" way of thinking.

  20. #20
    For whom nothing is written. Oliveloaf's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,180

    Default

    I'm into unassisted childbirth, too. As in, my wife should do it without my assistance.
    "I won't kill for money, and I won't marry for it. Other than that, I'm open to just about anything."

    -Jim Rockford

  21. #21
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norfolk, UK ?
    Posts
    1,722

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    One could argue all religious belief falls into the same category. Logically religion makes no sense but it is still followed by the majority of people in and out of science.
    Second post in the thread? What is this, Dope Lite? With all due respect, Jim, a lot of religious beliefs, while generally unprovable, are not as obviously arrant nonsense as, say, the belief that the government is controlling the thoughts of the people via chemicals distributed in jet contrails, or that sticking a candle in your ear and setting light to it rids the body of toxins, or that certain kinds of crystals radiate "positive energy". So suppose we steer clear of false equivalence, huh?

  22. #22
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Well, and I'm specifically asking about people who don't believe science even when it's within their specific area of expertise. It's one thing for someone who has a degree in accounting to be a creationist, for instance, but I'd be pretty damn shocked if a biologist was one. The existence of God (or ESP or ghosts or whatever) maybe be unprovable, but belief in those things doesn't preclude or contradict a belief in medical science.

  23. #23
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    What about biology precludes a belief that God created life? I mean, I can see not believing the picture book story where God says "A horse would be neat!" and there's a horse where there was once thin air, but the idea that God created building blocks and put them together in various ways really doesn't seem at odds with any science I know of.

    Granted, I'm not a biologist, and haven't taken a class on the subject in about twelve years.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

  24. #24
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Marsilia View post
    What about biology precludes a belief that God created life? I mean, I can see not believing the picture book story where God says "A horse would be neat!" and there's a horse where there was once thin air, but the idea that God created building blocks and put them together in various ways really doesn't seem at odds with any science I know of.

    Granted, I'm not a biologist, and haven't taken a class on the subject in about twelve years.
    Oh, it doesn't preclude that...I don't consider the "God put it in motion" idea as Creationism. I'm talking about Creationists who literally believe the Bible account and don't believe in evolution at all.
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 22 Feb 2011 at 02:14 PM.

  25. #25
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Deleted double post
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 22 Feb 2011 at 02:15 PM.

  26. #26
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Malacandra View post
    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    One could argue all religious belief falls into the same category. Logically religion makes no sense but it is still followed by the majority of people in and out of science.
    Second post in the thread? What is this, Dope Lite? With all due respect, Jim, a lot of religious beliefs, while generally unprovable, are not as obviously arrant nonsense as, say, the belief that the government is controlling the thoughts of the people via chemicals distributed in jet contrails, or that sticking a candle in your ear and setting light to it rids the body of toxins, or that certain kinds of crystals radiate "positive energy". So suppose we steer clear of false equivalence, huh?
    Well I did specifically say logical. I did not say irrational. By the simple fact that people are raised to religion and it is very widespread, religious belief is not irrational. However it remains illogical. There are probably more scientist that still hold belief in religion than not despite it not standing up to scientific reasoning and thus I stand by my example.

    Also quoting the one piece out of context makes it look like a light slam on religion and you will see I first offered up my unpopular viewpoint as another example.

  27. #27
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    Oh, yeah. Those people. Sometimes, I forget about them. I think I have a mental block for my own protection.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

  28. #28
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    I think Orual nailed it. Smart people can view themselves as above it all and believe that they know better than others.

    The deeper you dig into scientific history, the more you see how often theories conflicted and how frequently the common knowledge was ridiculously wrong. In high school and college level introductory classes there's a lot of "this is how it is and this is how we know" getting tossed around, but with more education comes more uncertainty. You start hearing the lesser known theories and reading the criticisms of the popular theories. For some who enjoy really separating themselves from the common, uneducated masses, those theories that lack support start looking really interesting because of their unpopularity.

    A scientist who embraces "woo" beliefs is essentially the hipster of theory.

  29. #29
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Yeah, I think maybe you guys are right.

  30. #30
    Oliphaunt Baldwin's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Quote Originally posted by Oliveloaf View post
    This is the mother's website. She's still a whack job, and a lousy web site builder.

    http://www.lisablairhathaway.com/id3..._for_you__.htm
    Oh, how funny...she's into Unassisted Childbirth (no doctor or midwife), a common manifestation of this philosophy. Not a smart thing to do, but fits in with the "no one controls me or tells me what to do" way of thinking.
    Unassisted underwater childbirth. J. H. Christ. And she's a "Healer" (capital H).

    Mayim Bialik's theories of childrearing are at least debatable, but not vaccinating them is inexcusable.

    There are a lot of nice people in the World of Woo. I met a Kiwi couple who, as far as I can tell, believe in every kind of pseudoscientific bullshit they've ever heard of. The wife was convinced that her husband prevented earthquakes just by residing in California. No point in arguing with them; it's like talking to a somnambulist who's walking around in a dream state. My reality is not their reality. Lovely people; glad they're not in charge of anything.

  31. #31
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Baldwin View post
    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Quote Originally posted by Oliveloaf View post
    This is the mother's website. She's still a whack job, and a lousy web site builder.

    http://www.lisablairhathaway.com/id3..._for_you__.htm
    Oh, how funny...she's into Unassisted Childbirth (no doctor or midwife), a common manifestation of this philosophy. Not a smart thing to do, but fits in with the "no one controls me or tells me what to do" way of thinking.
    Unassisted underwater childbirth. J. H. Christ. And she's a "Healer" (capital H).

    Mayim Bialik's theories of childrearing are at least debatable, but not vaccinating them is inexcusable.

    There are a lot of nice people in the World of Woo. I met a Kiwi couple who, as far as I can tell, believe in every kind of pseudoscientific bullshit they've ever heard of. The wife was convinced that her husband prevented earthquakes just by residing in California. No point in arguing with them; it's like talking to a somnambulist who's walking around in a dream state. My reality is not their reality. Lovely people; glad they're not in charge of anything.
    New Zealand is a huge bastion of woo, from what I've heard.

    And I agree with you...the parenting philosophy is kinda eye-rolly to my mind, but whatever...it's hard to prove one way is better than another, and it's largely influence by culture. The vaccination thing, though...that's hard science, and a lot harder to ignore the facts, or at least it should be.

  32. #32
    Oliphaunt dread pirate jimbo's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Calgary, AB, Canada
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Hatshepsut View post
    <snip>I have to admit to being a little guilty of this myself. Obviously there is no such thing as functional ESP, but I cannot help but think that there is a minute capacity among some people for a little bit of mind-reading/thought projection. Yes, this is a totally woo thing and I am probably laughably wrong. But, I keep thinking that the science behind it - some sort of wave or particle our brains weakly emit - will someday be discovered.<snip>
    ELF waves, commonly used by the US Navy to communicate with submarines at sea up until recently, require very little energy output (the human brain produces enough electrical charge to do the trick), can travel extremely long distances through virtually any material, including solid rock, and generally contain about the same amount of simple information typically associated with telepathic communication experiences. Just sayin'
    Hell is other people.

  33. #33
    Member
    Registered
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97

    Default

    What about the chicken-pox vaccine? I don't think kids should get that, since it isn't 100% guaranteed for life immunity like having actual chicken-pox.

  34. #34
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    I think the heart countermands the head when it comes to personal matters too. I know about science and how things work in the world around me but it doesn't solve my inner tumult in the remotest. I can think rationally about life/death/illness/health in the abstract but when it comes to my personal life or my family, I think I'd go on pilgrimages and do all sorts of flimflam if it stood a billionth of a percent of a chance of helping me or my loved ones. It's completely irrational and vaguely hypocritical but it's the way I, at least, am wired.

  35. #35
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hobbler View post
    What about the chicken-pox vaccine? I don't think kids should get that, since it isn't 100% guaranteed for life immunity like having actual chicken-pox.
    This is a far cry from the measles, mumps, polio and the old small pox vaccine. I think many doctors agree with you that in general it is probably better to get chicken pox young and gain the better immunity then to suffer through chicken pox or shingles as an adult. Of course, many that get chicken pox still suffer through shingles at an advance age, so the real hope is they develop a better chicken pox vaccine.

  36. #36
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norfolk, UK ?
    Posts
    1,722

    Default

    Getting chickenpox as a child doesn't grant you immunity to shingles no matter what - the virus remains dormant in the body and may flare up at any time, and most people who get shingles will indeed have had chickenpox as children. I don't know how effective the vaccine is at preventing shingles, but it could hardly be worse than natures way.

  37. #37
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Malacandra View post
    Getting chickenpox as a child doesn't grant you immunity to shingles no matter what - the virus remains dormant in the body and may flare up at any time, and most people who get shingles will indeed have had chickenpox as children. I don't know how effective the vaccine is at preventing shingles, but it could hardly be worse than natures way.
    Going only from memory, the vaccine does give less immunity to shingles then a good dose of chicken pox, it is on par with those that get a mild case. I think the other issue is that there was a concerted effort to stamp out small pox and polio but nothing so far on chicken pox. I suspect that is because in the end, chicken pox is pretty mild in comparison.

    I had chicken pox about 13 years ago. It was rotten to get it as an adult. I wish I had been lucky enough to get it as a kid. I did a lot of reading and research into it then, but as I said, that was 13 years ago and most of it has faded from my memory.

  38. #38
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    The vaccine is not effective at preventing shingles and will in fact cause it for the same reasons as chicken pox does.

    The vaccine is a live vaccine of chickenpox and gives a much milder case of chickenpox than catching the disease as normal, but in both cases the virus can rest in the nerves. When someone's immune system stops functioning properly, the virus can cause shingles in the affected area.

    If a person has never had chicken pox, they can never have shingles. Same goes for the virus. Of course, catching it in later life is never a good thing.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  39. #39
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    I think they actually have a shingles vaccine now, which they encourage for older people.

  40. #40
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Here is something newish and might change my opinion. I plan to read up on it more:

    However, a similar but different vaccine given later in life may reduce the incidence of herpes zoster (shingles).

  41. #41
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    IIRC, this new vaccine to protect adults from shingles isn't terribly effective. I can't remember where I'd been reading about it recently, but it only reduced your odds of getting shingles by 50% or somewhere around there. Still better than nothing, however.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts