Prior to the release of the vaccine for H1n1 (aka “swine flu”…), there were plenty of conspiracies going around about the flu: it’s biological warfare; it was created by Novartis so that the company could make huge profits off of pharmaceuticals/vaccines; etc. etc. etc. etc. It’s like reductio ad swine flu, guys. Seriously.

So that had been going on just nicely, and occasionally on Twitter, you would see “#h1n1″ as a trending topic, and that was the end of it.

Now that the vaccine has been released, a major division seems to be arising: people who think that the vaccine is warfare/poisonous/going to cause autism/Gilles-Barre Syndrome/Gulf War Syndrome/neurological diseases/herpes/AIDS/cancer/stupidity/obesity/homosexuality/atheism/terrorism and so on.  The other side is a group of people who are confident that the vaccine is not harmful, and really, really, REALLY wish that people in camp 1 would stop watching Youtube and reading Wikipedia, along with other unverified sources of information, and do some proper research before freaking out.

The problem with the “I trust Youtube more than I trust the a primary source of research” is that, I guess, the underlying opinion is that the data which comes from all the research done on vaccines and diseases is propaganda (unlike the stuff on the internet, saying the vaccine is evil, which isn’t propaganda?), and cannot be trusted.

I think some of this comes from a lack of understanding about just what goes into peer-reviewed research.  It’s not as simple as Grade 10 Biology class.  Okay, here’s a story that I hope won’t get me in trouble:

In Grade 10 Biology, we had to do a project and a lab report where we had two different bean plants growing. One was the control, and the other had to have a variation in the way that it was being grown.  I had two bean plants;  I didn’t care for Biology.  I put the two bean plants in the furnace room under lights with different strengths of light bulbs.  Students were supposed to measure the plants every day or something for like 30 days.  I measured the plants maybe three times during that period.  In the end, I just extrapolated the data and got a 75%.  That was rather dishonest of me.  I had never done anything like that in school before, and I never did again.

So, in that case, I could get away with making up shit about my bean plant and saying “this type of light makes a bean plant grow taller than type B” and it was reasonably accepted.  Had I also talked about how much water I gave the plants (uh.. none?) and taken pictures, maybe I would have even scored an A.

My point is that you can make up that kind of stuff in grade 10 Biology, and it will be accepted by your mentors and peers as truth and as a properly researched job.

In the world of post-doctoral research, not so much.  In a sense, yes; some vaccines are not tested to the same extent as others (seasonal flu vaccines), but health departments spend a great deal of time observing how strains of flu change, and developing vaccines that, based on a significant amount of knowledge, will be effective against the season’s major flus.  These vaccines ARE tested on various cross-sections of the population.  Not just “healthy” people.  People who have had liver transplants, the elderly, and people of all ages.  If you even spend a few minutes using Google Scholar (or your school’s local online database, such as EBSCO), you can find this information easily.

This leads me to another problem: If someone who is skeptical of the vaccine is actually going to go to enough trouble to read up on the research done on these vaccines, they are likely going to have some trouble understanding the language, because it contains a vocabulary familiar to people working in healthcare, as opposed to laypeople.

So what is the best way to dispel the hysteria and the rampant conspiracy theories?  Right now, because of the economy, the wars, and the rise of social media, governments and institutions of authority are in the perfect position to be totally disregarded as truthful.  This gives way to a nice breeding ground for unhealthy skepticism, ignorance, and unfounded statements that will be taken as true.

Some newspapers have invited doctors to answer questions from readers about their concerns regarding the vaccine.  They are able to put the words of these articles into more understandable words.  How effective these doctors are at conveying their take on safety is another story.  Based on comments online, and public polls, it doesn’t look like the public is being convinced; rather, I don’t think the public wants to be convinced.

I guess what we have are two problems:

1) a public who does not want to believe their government, or authority figures;

2) a lack of easily available information, which the average person can understand.

To further #2 — the easily available information doesn’t seem to become available until problem #1 is has already ingrained itself deeply.  At this point, the understandable information doesn’t have the same value.

But is it realistic to have preemptively fear-quelling information, without knowing what people’s fears will be?