This will be my annotated bibliography of sorts that will help me to organize my sources when I write my Quick Reference Guide for the postmortem controversy that is the Vaccination bill SB277 in California. This won't be the prettiest blog entries to look at, but it includes VERY helpful information regarding this issue.
SOURCE #1
Where: This source comes from the online magazine Wired. It is a news website so it does seem to be credible, however, it isn't as completely reliable as a .org or .edu would be since it isn't scientifically backed. That doesn't mean though that it is not a good source of some information.
Who: The author, Joanna Pearlstein, is the deputy managing editor of the Wired magazine. She oversees the editing, she directs the research department, and she is the editor for the "front of the book" articles. She in on LinkedIn (but I don't have an account for that so I could not see her full profile) and she is on Twitter. She seems to be very involved in her editing and fact-checking based on her tweets and her LinkedIn bio. This verifies that the article she wrote in Wired must be factually correct.
When: This article was electronically published January 21st, 2016. Besides the article being written about 6 months after the bill was passed, the article was also posted after the due date (January 1st, 2016) for parents to file a letter or affidavit allowing their children to opt-out of vaccinations at least until the next school year. Other than that, the Zika disease was well known of before this article was written so nothing that important or significant to the controversy had to do with the timing of this article.
What: This article discuses the data of immunization rates from all of the different counties in California. It also notes how the California Governor, Jerry Brown, who signed the SB 277 bill in June 2015 decided to pass the bill after a measles outbreak in Disneyland in late 2014 and early 2015. Since there were 113 infected people from the outbreak, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim that there has officially been a re-emergence of measles even though in 2000 they had declared the disease was eliminated from the U.S. since so many people had gotten the vaccination. This article shows the reasons why the stakeholder, Governor Brown, decided to pass this bill due to the serious recent outbreak. This article also describes the reason why the measles may have seen a recent re-emergence. It was probably due to the medical journal article which said that the vaccination for measles, mumps and rubella was linked to autism. However, the CDC said that the journal was retracted immediately since it held false information. This article also brought up the first death in 12 years from measles due to no being vaccinated.
SOURCE #2
Where: This article was posted in the San Jose Mercury News online website in the "Health" section. Since it is the local newspaper of a county in California, where the whole controversy is happening, it seems that this would be a reliable source.
Who: Tracy Seipel is the author of this article. She is a USC alumni and works for the Bay Area News Group. She has worked at three metropolitan daily news companies and has had a number of assignments ranging from general to business and now she is in health care. On Twitter she mainly posts about different local news stories where she links the tweet to the Mercury news website. She seems pretty reliable considering she knows the area well and has experience in reporting.
When: This article was electronically published October 8th, 2015. This was 3 months after Governor Brown signed the bill SB277. It was published about 6 days prior to Governor Brown signing the SB 792 bill mandating parent volunteers in schools and preschool teachers to be vaccinated as well. So if parents weren't mad enough with the Governor for SB 277, they were even more frustrated with this new bill.
What: This article brings up a new stakeholder-Tim Donnelly. Donnelly was a past state assemblyman in California who is the leader of the referendum to repeal SB 277. The article notes that Donnelly said the referendum will most likely fail without enough funding and support. This article really focuses on the people that are fighting against the new vaccination bill. There is a woman of Marin County who is the founder of the Council for Vaccine Safety who makes a statement opposing the controversy as well. The article brings up a rally at the Golden Gate Bridge that protestors put together after Governor Brown signed the bill in June of 2015. The article by Seipel also has another woman representative from the anti-SB277 group who is a mother of two and the founder of a nonprofit "A Voice For Choice" who is a California resident saying that she and many others are not afraid to file multiple law suits around the state. This article is important to my project because it sheds light on the opposing side of the controversy.
SOURCE #3
Where: This article was found on Stanford University's News website. I think this is one of the most reliable sources since it is a .edu resource and it backed by the prestigious University. They would not want to publish something that was not factually based and correct on behalf of their high standards.
Who: The authors of this article were the three highly qualified authors that I mentioned in a previous post while researching different possible topics to do this project on. The main author, Clifton B. Parker is the social sciences writer for the Stanford News. What makes him highly credible, is that he worked alongside two other Stanford professors who both have very good education backgrounds and credentials. The other two authors are Michelle Mello and David Studdert. Michelle Mello is a leading public health law scholar, the author to more than 140 articles and book chapters on medical malpractice. She has a BA from Stanford, an MPhil from Oxford University, a PhD from University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and a JD from Yale Law School. David Studdert is also well educated. His work frequently is published in international health policies, law, and medical journals. He received the Alice S. Hersh New Investigator Award from the leading organization of public health, AcademyHealth. These three authors combined are obviously have more than enough credentials to make this article reliable.
When: This article was posted July 23rd, 2015. It was published less than a month after Governor Brown of California signed the bill SB 277 on vaccinations. So, the fight for the referendum was still going strong.
What: This article appears to be more biased towards the supporting side of the SB277 bill. This is shown through Mello's comment, "this move represents a stunning victory for public health that affects not only California schoolchildren,". However, the article also notes what is good and bad about the bill while supporting the mandated vaccinations. Parker does this by explaining the politics of the vaccinations and why the politicians were strong against the pressure from the opposition, what the legal ground for the bill followed and why it is being passed in courts, and the problem with enforcing the bill once it becomes a law. The enforcement is in the hands of the schools and daycares but Mello and Studdert believe that it should be in the hands of health departments. All the schools would have to do is notify the department about who is not complying, and the school won't have to worry about it anymore since it would be taken care of by the health department. It may be a shorter article, but it has a lot of valid reasons why the bill should be passed, why it would be successful, and how the problems that they opposing side sees could be fixed.
SOURCE #4
Where: This article of sorts is posted on the homepage of the website for the California Coalition For Vaccine Choice. It is powered by Weebly meaning that the website was very easily created by people who are very strongly opposed to SB 277. This website will be a credibly source for the facts from the opposing side, however that is about it. I can use their quotes to show why they are opposed and I can use the videos that they post of other important figures speaking out against the bill. But I cannot use this source for any other information that that of the anti-vaccination side of the argument.
Who: There is no clear author for this persuasive headlining article, since it just collectively a bunch of thoughts that the people of California in favor of repealing the new bill think towards the mandatory vaccinations. The NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) Advocacy Portal has a big hand in the making of this website and the fight against the bill. The NVIC is the contact information on this article, making me believe that the people in NVIC wrote it.
When: This article also does not have a date saying when the website was made, or when this article was published. However, it is clear that it was made once the bill was officially signed into law on July 1st, 2015. This is because there are giant pictures and warnings about the bill coming into effect on July 1st, 2016 with many other posts about Governor Brown's signage and what the bill will include and why it will be such a big issue. It also gives information about deadlines that parents need to have an affidavit before so that they can get "grandfathered" into the opt-out option for the next coming school year.
What: The article shows the extreme views of the opposing side and why the people on this side of the argument believe what they do. There are links to other videos or websites that support them and their fight to repeal the SB277 bill. There are allies that are joined with them and links on how to contact those allies. But specifically, the article describes how all families will be affected negatively from this bill. There is a link to the actual law and all of the legal terms that it includes but it also includes all that the parents need to do in order to avoid this bill becoming effective or how they can avoid getting their children vaccinated at least for the next school year. It notes who the bill does not affect in just a brief segment. But the article mostly specifies what is crucial for people to do to make a difference and join the fight against the "terrible" new government mandate.
SOURCE #5
Where: The link to this video was found on the website for California Coalition For Vaccine Choice. But the video itself was posted on YouTube by the user "The Fullerton Informer" (Fullerton is a county in California that the nurse speaking is from). Considering that the website it came from is reliable, and the user who posted the video on YouTube has other videos that are just as reliable since it is regarding news in the Fullerton area, I would say that this video is credible.
Who: Zonya Townsend is the speaker in this video. She has lived in Fullerton for 28 years, is a registered nurse, and a mother of 4 kids. She is the president of the California Nurses for Ethical Standards. This group supports the American Medical Association Code of Ethics: Opinion 9.133 saying that medical, religious or philosophical reasons to not get vaccinated have to be respected. Since she is so prevalent in the nursing field, I think that Townsend is a reliable source to get information from. She is on the opposing side of the controversy, but she seems to have valid facts that support her decisions and the decisions of the California Nurses for Ethical Standards.
When: This video was posted March 15th, 2015. This was a few months before Governor Brown signed the bill into a law. This was 10 days after the Department of Justice's report of injuries and deaths from vaccinations during the first quarter of the year came out. The report said that there were 117 deaths and injuries during this quarter. 73 of the 92 settlements dealt with the deaths and injuries from the flu shot. However, the other deaths and injuries were from a different vaccine, Guillian-Barré syndrome, which is not on the list of the 10 required vaccinations in SB 277.
What: This video explains why the California Nurses for Ethical Standards is opposing the new bill. Townsend explains the different opinions that come from the American Medical Association Code of Ethics that show why the nurses and doctors are supposed to help patients decide whether or not to get immunized and they have to comply with what their patient wants if the shot goes against philosophical, medical, or religious values. The nurses then have no choice but to oppose the bill since in the "rule books of ethics" for nurses, the bill would be going against those rules and ethics by not really giving their patients an option. Townsend notes how the United States Health and Human Services National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has given $2.8 billion to survivors of vaccination related injuries. She says that CNES has the ethical interests of patients in mind and thinks that the government needs to keep those in mind as well when deciding whether or not to sign off on this bill.
SOURCE #6
Where: This video, like the one above, was also posted on the California Coalition For Vaccine Choice. However, the source that I got it from was on Vimeo. As I said in the section above, the CCFVC website is credible for the same reasons and the Vimeo website is reliable because the user that posted this video, the California Senate Republican Caucus, has other videos that have republican senators discussing politics. There is no editing, just a video of someone speaking in court.
Who: The speaker in the video, Senator Joel Anderson, a Republican of the San Diego region is a reliable source since he is in politics and understands (or should understand) the legality of the bill. These are his words which also make them credible since I am watching the words come out of his mouth, not someone else's. Senator Anderson is also reliable because he is a public figure speaking out for those who are opposing the bill.
When: The video was published on Vimeo around June of 2015 (it just says that it was posted 8 months ago). That would be the time of Governor Brown signing SB 277 into a law. This was an important time because the opposing side was doing everything they could to try to get the referendum to repeal the bill from being signed. Having a politician from a highly populated county of California was very important if the referendum was going to try to get enough funding and signatures for it to work.
What: The only thing that Senator Joel Anderson says he opposes in the SB 277 is the part of religion not being able to be exempt from vaccinations. He said many times that that was the sole reason why he was against the bill. He urges that as legislators, their job is to protect individual's rights, and he believes that this bill is infringing upon the right to free faith. He says that free faith is a part of California's fundamental rights for individuals. To enforce this bill will go against that and what California legislators stand for. Anderson also says that the government should not be getting in the way of parent- child relationships. It is a parental right to choose vaccinations for their children, according to Senator Anderson.
SOURCE #7
Where: This article was posted on EdSource (which is a website that highlights ways for students to be successful) in the Legislation section. EdSource is a nonprofit journal that writes about issues in California related to education issues. This is a pretty credible considering it is education based-so the authors would not put things that would lead to a bad reputation on education not only in California but in the United States in general.
Who: Jane Meredith Adams wrote this article. She is a senior reporter for EdSource Today in the student health section. She was the former staff reporter for the Boston Globe in social services focusing on the AIDS epidemic and foster care issues. She is a contributing editor for Health magazine. She has an AB in government from Harvard University and and MFA in writing from San Francisco State University. From this given information, I would say that Adams is a credible source of information. She seems to have the credentials to be a reliable source of information.
When: This article was electronically published July 1st, 2015 but was updated January 11th, 2016. The day that the article was published was one day after the day that Governor Jerry Brown signed off on SB277 making it into a law. This is important because it was a direct update on what happened once the bill was official.
What: This source was incredibly helpful considering all of the facts that it went into detail in. For example, for the first time, all ten of the required vaccines were listed instead of just saying that there were 10 vaccines in general. They are the following: diptheria, haemophilus influenzaue type B (bacterial meningitis), measles, mumps, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, rubella, tetanus, hepatitis B, and varicella (chicken pox).
The article also explains how only a small percentage of kindergarteners in California opted out for personal belief exemptions in the 2014-2015 school year. It was only 2.7% of all of the kindergarteners in the whole state of California. That means that even though there is such a small percentage of kids who didn't get vaccinated, the diseases can still spread and it is still dangerous to those around them. However, the article also points out how the kindergarteners can be let into the schools "conditionally". This allows the kindergartener to attend school as long as they have gotten the MMR vaccine and at least one of the other 7 vaccinations.. Apparently this conditional attendance had to be allowed since vaccinations cannot get done all at the same time. There is a specific age and time when each of the immunizations should be given, so it might be spread out.
Adams also notes that the new law will override the 3-year old exemption from Governor Jerry Brown from the form for exemption for religious beliefs that the California Department of Public Health created.
SOURCE #8
Where: This interview was published on the CSI website-The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry-. The website is a .org which means that it is more reliable than just an average .com website. If you click on the hyperlink in the last sentence, you will find why this is a credible source. For starters, it is all scientifically backed. But you will also find that the authors and their articles stay objective to the topics. So, the author will simply be telling the facts as is, without showing support for either side of the controversy. This helps with making sure my facts are straight and not jumbled all up.
Who: Lindsay Beyerstein is the woman who is interviewing Dr. Paul Offit. She is credible because she is an award-winning investigative journalist. She lectures regularly on the relationship between objectivity and journalism which is another reason why Beyerstein seems to be so reliable. She knows how to relay information without getting her views and opinions in the way of the facts of the story. She has covered many controversial topics throughout the past decade, including the money fraud scandal of Tom DeLay.
When: The typed up interview was electronically posted in late May/early June 2015. However, this segment of the podcast came from a whole podcast by Beyerstein in her podcast Point of Inquiry posted February 2nd, 2015. This is important to the controversy because this was about a month before the Governor signed off on SB277 and made the mandated vaccinations into a California law. This was also not long after the measles outbreak in Disneyland which is partially why the bill was created in the first place.
What: Dr. Paul Offit is being interviewed. He is a new important stakeholder because he is the director of the Vaccine Education Center and the chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia. He is supposedly one of the world's leading figures in public health and immunization importance. Dr. Offit is a stakeholder for the pro SB277 group. Offit says in the interview that this year's rate of protection against diseases is by far the worst he has seen in the past 20 years of working in the vaccination field. It was in the 23% range this year according to Dr. Offit. He also notes that 1 in 10 people think that the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccines are unsafe for healthy children. Dr. Offit also talks about the children whose parents won't let them get vaccinated for religious beliefs. But Offit says that it is brought up many times in the New Testament how Jesus protected children in a time of infanticide. So, what would be against their religion to not protect their kids from infectious diseases is what Offit argues.
SOURCE #9
Where: Mother Jones-Environment is a leading independent news website that is based on progressive views and focuses on news in the fields of politics, human rights, and environment. It is a reliable source because it is a news source that has good informative evidence that backs up the facts that are brought up in the articles.
Who: Keira Butler wrote the text part of the interview and the video is by Brett Brownell. Butler is a senior editor Mother Jones . She covers health, food and the environment. She is also currently writing a book. She appears to be a credible author and recorder of information during an interview. Brownell was the multimedia producer for Mother Jones. He has produced videos for WarnerBros, AOL, Capitol Records, and America for Obama. This tells me that he is a reliable videographer and won't edit out parts that are incredibly important to the context of the story.
When: This article was electronically posted on March 30th, 2014. This was two months after the January 1st, 2014 law saying that Californians need to have a personal belief exemption note from a medical professional in order to opt out of getting vaccines. The irony of this is that almost a year and a half after this California law was made, the California politicians made a law that completely contradicted the January law.
What: Pediatrics Alternatives is one of the doctors' offices in the hippie town of Marin County in California. They have an incredibly well-trained staff who believe in following an unorthodox schedule for vaccinations. Instead of following the schedule that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) came up with for children's vaccinations, they do a delayed schedule. According to the article, less than 20% of the families that are a part of the practice did not get vaccinated at all. The remaining 80% of the families are on the delayed schedule. This article has noted that the immunization rate in California is the lowest out of the whole country for kindergarteners. Yet, this didn't stop the Pediatrics Alternatives from keeping the delayed vaccination schedule. The main doctor of this family practice, Kenet Lansman, based her practice on Western medicine and nontraditional methods of healing. She noticed when she first opened her practice that the kids of Marin County were generally very healthy so she wanted to come up with a way to continue the healthy habits. Lansman believes that the vaccinations are the cause for the increase in autoimmune diseases in California especially. She has a policy of giving only one vaccination at a time.
SOURCE #10
Where: This article was found on the website for NPR (National Public Radio). This is a reliable site for information since it is nationally known and always has hourly updates. The people that do the research find good public figures and other reliable interviewees in order to get factual evidence to support the story they are working with.
Who: Rae Ellen Bichell is from Helsinki, Finland. I know that she is a reliable source of information because she got an appreciation for audio story telling from NPR. Her education is also a good indicator that she is a good source of relaying information objectively and that she won't leave out important details and facts. She studied anthropology and journalism at Yale.
When: This article was electronically published November 27th, 2015 but updated December 1st, 2015. This is important because the article was both posted and updated before the deadline ended for parents to sign the affidavit to get an opt-out for vaccinations into the next school year.
What: In a poll for vaccinations in the United States of 3,000 people, 62% of the people said that they already have been vaccinated or plan on getting the vaccination for the flu. Those who didn't get vaccinated or plan not to, chose that because the 48% of them think that the spray vaccination won't make a difference. Another 16% of the group won't get vaccinated because they are worried that they will get sick from it and that there are too many side effects and risks that come with the immunizations. Only 8% of the people in the survey said that they just won't get vaccinated simply because they think that the shots are ineffective. However, the cost of the immunizations never seemed to be a problem when deciding whether or not to get vaccinated. Vaccination reduced the transmission of diseases because even if the non-vaccinated people don't get sick, they can still give other people the disease from airborne sicknesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment