PATIENT SAFETY
old. The anti-vaccination movement first sparked in the 1990s thanks to a now- discredited study by Andrew Wakefield, a former doctor who was struck from the medical register as a result of his fraudulent study. The evidence that vaccines do not cause autism is incredibly strong at this point. Despite this, the uptake of the crucial second dose of the MMR vaccine is sitting at 88%, with an uptake of 95% recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in order to maintain herd immunity. Herd immunity is vital in preventing epidemics and protecting people who physically cannot get vaccines due to issues such as allergies. So, why does the fear of vaccines persist, in spite of the severity of consequence in not being vaccinated?
Speaking on the Sunderland Talks
lecturer in psychology at the University of Sunderland, Dr Sophie Hodgetts, explained the reasoning behind people sharing such information across social media channels.
podcast,2
Dr Hodgetts said: “If you already think vaccines are bad, chances are you will only search out information that supports that view. It’s a very emotional issue and it plays on a lot of people’s concerns.” This process of selective evidence gathering is highly problematic, and leaves doctors in the unfavourable position of having to present their medical expertise against a reluctant patient’s own research on social media and the like.
While the original study that sparked these fears has since been debunked, it has simply been replaced by other articles designed to play on the echoes of concern the study left behind. For example, the flu vaccination has recently come under similar scrutiny as the MMR vaccine, with one utterly fabricated story claiming that the flu shot caused a deadly flu outbreak. The article claimed to quote a physician from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who stated the outbreak saw people who got the shot ending up dead. Despite the fact the article and its quotes were proven to be made
up, the story received 500,000 Facebook engagements in January 2018.3 So, once again, it’s thanks to medical misinformation spreading like wildfire on social media, from both the public and influential figures. For example, the wife of President Trump’s deputy chief of staff for communications recently posted a series of Tweets full of misleading information on vaccines and, more worryingly, cancer.
Misinformation: The WHO declares bacon is as risky as cigarettes
It’s easy to see why this one was shared so much, so quickly. Everyone knows bacon is something of a ‘treat’ – it’s certainly not a health food. Plus, the internet-fuelled, meme- level view of bacon as being the holy grail of life means the passion is there to share this ‘shocking’ and ‘heart-breaking’ revelation.
times,4
According to an article shared 587,000 the fact that the International Agency
for Research on Cancer had classified processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogenic compound, putting it in the same group as tobacco, this meant the World Health Organization was advising the world that eating bacon and processed meats were as damaging as smoking.
This misinterpretation has since been clarified by the WHO – yes, processed meats are classed as a Group 1 compound. However, this classification signals that there is strong evidence to suggest this compound causes cancer. It does not mean that every compound in this group is equally dangerous.5
It simply means the evidence for processed meat causing cancer is as strong as the evidence for tobacco causing cancer. The classifications denote the strength of evidence, not the level of risk, the WHO explained: “Processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.”
According to
healthfeedback.org, studies show that around 19% of all cancers are caused by tobacco. However, only 3% are estimated to be caused by eating processed meat. Although both factors have strong evidence to link them to cancer, that doesn’t mean they both present the same risk: there is strong evidence to suggest processed meats present a risk of cancer. The equally
30 I
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM NOVEMBER 2019
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
