Great article from the Economist on this topic the other day which noted that news programs offering "balanced content" and allowing anti-vaccination advocates on the air to respond to the science has a detrimental effect on vaccinations
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...d-vaccinations
Quote:
"This actually happened in Britain in 2002, after the idea of a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism was first publicised. Despite plentiful scientific evidence that the MMR vaccine was safe, and that it was used in over 90 countries, what people heard was that there were two sides to the debate. Vaccination rates plummeted (though they have since rebounded).
An investigation into the decline of vaccinations in Britain found that the problem, in part, was the way the media covered the matter. In an effort to offer balance—and to entertain viewers with a lively verbal jousting match—news outlets lined up people with opposing views. In one corner were health experts who supported the vaccine. In the other were charismatic quacks or parents who were utterly convinced that the vaccine had made their children autistic (and whose genuine grief swayed many viewers). In America minor celebrities have joined this mix."
|