Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Agrul, Feb 2, 2020.
Veterans Used In Secret Experiments Sue Military For Answers : NPR
"There would be a guaranteed three-day pass every weekend unless you had a test," he says. "There would be no kitchen police duties, no guard duties. And it sounded like a pretty good duty."
There were also some done on insane asylums and prisoners on a non voluntary basis.
Agent Orange Experiments
Prisoners, like people of color, have often been the unwilling objects of evil experiments. From 1965 to 1966, Dr. Albert Kligman, funded by Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, and the U.S. Army, conducted what was deemed “dermatological research” on approximately 75 prisoners. What was actually being studied was the effects of Agent Orange on humans.
Prisoners were injected with dioxin (a toxic byproduct of Agent Orange)—468 times the amount the study originally called for. The results were prisoners with volcanic eruptions of chloracne (severe acne combined with blackheads, cysts, pustules, and other really bad stuff) on the face, armpits and groin. Long after the experiments ended, prisoners continued to suffer from the effects of the exposure. Dr. Kligman, apparently very enthusiastic about the study, was quoted as saying, “All I saw before me were acres of skin… It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time.” Kligman went on to become the doctor behind Retin-A, a major treatment for acne.
The Monster Study
Add children to the list of vulnerable people subjected to evil experiments. In 1939, Wendell Johnson, University of Iowa speech pathologist, and his grad student Mary Tudor, conducted stuttering experiments on 22 non-stuttering orphan children. The children were split into two groups. One group was given positive speech therapy, praising them for their fluent speech. The unfortunate other group was given negative therapy, harshly criticizing them for any flaw in their speech abilities, labeling them stutterers.
The result of this cruel experiment was that children in the negative group, while not transforming into full-fledged stutterers, suffered negative psychological effects and several suffered from speech problems for the rest of their lives. Formerly normal children came out of the experiment, dubbed “The Monster Study,” anxious, withdrawn and silent. Several, as adults, eventually sued the University of Iowa, which settled the case in 2007.
That wasn't targeting whites. We have a bit of a history with targeting blacks for human experimentation.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of them did target whites. Just in NC we have like ~20 such experiments that were small scale and you only hear about them locally. I only spent 2 seconds on google looking for some. Not taking away the evil done to slaves and post slavery African Americans. Just saying we didn't always discriminate in our thoughtful experimentation.
Hm -- maybe. Also don't have time to dig in the methodology right now, but, yeah, I think it looks like they found significantly higher rates in general (even the rural white evangelical groups are nearly 50%?), which is curious. They might, also, be classifying people differently ("White", "Black', "Asian" mean "White Alone", "Black Alone", "Asian Alone" in the CDC data; if Kaiser is including people who selected multiple races in those groups, that would inflate the rates), or Kaiser may be counting only adults (the wording in their graphic is not very clear).
I don't think there's much evidence that experiments were run specifically targeting white people. A fair number were run on other vulnerable populations (especially prisoners) though, without explicit race filtering, and obviously you'll end up with a lot of white people in those if you don't explicitly exclude them, given you're in the US. Not sure they were generally as horrific as Tuskegee, but there's probably some kind of intersectionality-like argument for which groups have the most justification to be hesitant about "gov't(-advocated/mandated) injections". In any case, it's still obviously a major problem -- both for them and everyone else -- if a justifiably hesitant group remains significantly unvaccinated.
Trying to make judgment calls on which groups of poor, uneducated, segregated people are “allowed” to have vaccine hesitancy is not a game I want to play (not that either of you are doing that). It’s likely to be an exercise in attributional bias. There are plenty of reasons for white people to not trust the system, too, especially in a country where one political wing is emboldened to pander to rural grievance and hyper-individualism because of your electoral math. Your vaccine hesitancy is propped up by a multi-billion dollar machine. Of course people are going to be hesitant.
There’s not much of a solution to it other than to have a mandate. Delicate persuasion is too slow. This mandate should have been implemented months ago. You have to go about it gently, though, because people don’t need to be treated like scumbag pieces of garbage because they are afraid of having shit forced into their bloodstream by the government.
I'm not really super interested in who is 'allowed' to have vaccine hesitancy, or whose is more or less justifiable. I don't care about shitting on rural white MAGA types either. I just want an accurate picture of where we're struggling with vaccinations, not a distortion powered by memes, and want to understand how best to get it fixed/what hope we have of getting there. Hopefully the mandate will do it; certainly seems like it should.
Only reason I brought it up was that it has been over played at this point. The number of people that know people who have been harmed by the medical community on purpose or were vaccine injured are so incredibly low right now, its hard ball time. Even if the OSHA mandate is on very shaky legal ground. We would have already had universal healthcare if it was legal. It at least gives companies some cover. Tucc and Valara can ambush and Utumno and I can sit on them while Sanlaven jabs em. Make it like a factory process.
I dunno, everyone here shits on rural white MAGA types regularly. It might not be the worst idea to analyze why.
Clearly that rural grievance and hyper-individualism pandering is something TZT'ers are less sympathetic towards (which I don't even disagree with, though maybe not to the extremes that some take it).
I think it's fine to have opinions on the different reasons for hesitancy btw. Some are completely selfish and some are more understandable. Even the speakers in that Mayo Clinic presentation I linked a while back acknowledge as much.
Trying to then assign them to race isn't something I'm interested in doing, although I'm sure there's some data out there on that. I just posted about the Tuskagee experiments since it's been noted as a reason for hesitancy among African-Americans and I was surprised they aren't more hesitant statistically.
I think the number one reason for vaccine hesitancy is lack of faith in pharma in general. Consider all the valid lawsuits in the past. That combined with a valid selfish argument based on the health and age of the individual.
I think the number one reason is a perceived lack of threat (caused by consuming information via Fox News, caused by politicization)
Although the nature of our data does not render causal claims, it highlights potential explanations. First, we note that participants’ ratings of perceived COVID-19 threat followed a similar diverging pattern by party affiliation to our three vaccine-related measures during the study period. Democrats perceived COVID-19 threat to be greater at the start of the study than Republicans did, and this gap widened significantly as the study progressed. This trend is consistent with previous research showing that vaccine hesitancy is related to perceived risk of a threat; when a VPD threat level is low, individuals are less motivated to take preventative action (i.e., immunize; for a review, see ).
S6 Table). Corroborating this proposition, a Pew Research Center poll conducted in March 2020 found that 56% of respondents whose main news source is Fox News believed that “the news media have greatly exaggerated the risks about the Coronavirus outbreak,” whereas this was only true for 25% of those whose main news source is CNN . Of note, Facebook and Instagram, were also in the top four most consumed news sources for participants affiliated with either party. Extant work describes these platforms as echo chambers [44, 45], which may exacerbate partisan exposure to news and information.
Changes in COVID-19 vaccination receipt and intention to vaccinate by socioeconomic characteristics and geographic area, United States, January 6 – March 29, 2021
Intent to definitely get a COVID-19 vaccine increased by almost 18 percentage points from early January to late March; however, younger adults, adults who are non-Hispanic Black or other races, adults of lower socioeconomic status, and adults living in the southeastern U.S. region (Region 4) continue to have higher coverage gaps and levels of vaccine hesitancy. Emphasizing the importance of vaccination among all populations, and removing barriers to vaccines, may lead to a reduction of COVID-19 incidence and bring an end to the pandemic.
Receipt of ≥1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and intent to probably or definitely get vaccinated increased from early January to late March; however, disparities in vaccine intent continued to exist by age group, race/ethnic groups, and socioeconomic characteristics.
Vaccine receipt and the intent were the lowest for region 4 (southeastern U.S.) compared to other regions during this period.
Adults who had a previous COVID-19 diagnosis or were unsure if they have had COVID-19 were less likely to intend to get vaccinated; overall, the belief that a vaccine is not needed to be increased by more than 5% points from early January to late March.
As of 26 July 2021, 178 million or 69% of adults aged 18 or older in the United States (U.S.) had been vaccinated with at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine . While initial doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were prioritized for healthcare personnel, adults over 65 years, adults with comorbidities, and essential workers [2,3], the vaccine has been available to all adults nationally since 19 April 2021 [4,5]. However, studies conducted in September and December 2020 suggested that only 40 and 50%, respectively of U.S. adults planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it became available to them [6,7]. Among people reporting that they would not be vaccinated in December 2020, the major concerns cited were the side effects and safety of the vaccine, concerns about the speed of vaccine development and testing, and a feeling of distrust in government . While recent polls show that vaccination intent is increasing among the general public [8,9], disparities in vaccination receipt persist among subpopulations and geographical areas [10,11].
Attitudes towards the vaccine have changed over time as new information has emerged about vaccine characteristics and more people have been vaccinated. Since the first emergency use authorization (EUA) of the COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020 , no study has examined changes in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and willingness to be vaccinated among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults by sociodemographic characteristics and geographic areas. Understanding factors associated with receipt or intention to get the COVID-19 vaccine and reasons for non-vaccination is important for tailoring health communication campaigns and strategies to promote public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and to ensure high and equitable vaccination coverage across all populations.
Data from national surveys can be used to monitor changes in COVID-19 vaccine behaviours and evolving attitudes towards vaccination-valuable insights that can be employed to identify and tailor messages for priority audiences efforts aimed at improving vaccine confidence, particularly among vulnerable populations who experience inequities related to social determinants of health. Research has shown racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 infections and deaths  and yet are less likely to have received or report the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine . These groups are overrepresented among frontline essential workers, are less likely to be insured or have a usual source of care, and many are experiencing financial and food insecurity, housing instability, and other competing priorities that put them at increased risk of infection and death from the COVID-19 [14–16].
This study examines changes in and factors associated with receipt of ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination intent from 6 January to 29 March 2021 by socioeconomic characteristics and geographic areas and reasons for non-vaccination using the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS) . The HPS is a large, nationally representative survey that collects data on COVID-19 vaccination coverage and intent, as well as other social and economic characteristics during the pandemic. This study provides timely data on disparities in COVID-19 vaccine confidence by socioeconomic factors and geographic areas, which can be used to evaluate and target efforts to improve vaccine uptake. Ensuring high and equitable vaccination coverage in all populations is critical to preventing the spread of COVID-19 and bringing an end to the pandemic.
The Household Pulse Survey (HPS) is a large, nationally representative household survey of appoximately 75,000 respondents conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau to help understand household experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic . The HPS utilizes the Census Bureau’s Master Address File (MAF), which has approximately140,000,000 valid housing units, to select a very large sample. It is designed to provide representative estimates at the national, state, and local level for 15 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). To enable the HPS’s use of a rapid deployment internet and telephone interview system, email and mobile telephone numbers from the Census Bureau Contact Frame was paired with addresses in the MAF, for which there were 80% matches. Unique phone numbers and email addresses were identified and assigned to only one housing unit. The housing units in the MAF were limited to these addresses on the Contact Frame as the final eligible housing units for the HPS. The response rates for six waves of data collection from 6 January to 29 March 2021 ranged from 6.4 to 7.5% . This study was reviewed by the Tufts University Health Sciences Institutional Review Board and was not considered human subjects research.
Beginning on 6 January 2021, the HPS added questions on COVID-19 vaccination coverage, intent, and reasons for not vaccinating. COVID-19 vaccination receipt (≥1 dose or fully vaccinated) was assessed by the following questions: “Have you received a COVID-19 vaccine?” and “Did you receive (or do you plan to receive) all required doses?” Among unvaccinated adults, intent to be vaccinated was assessed with the following question: “Once a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 is available to you, would you…definitely, probably, probably not, or definitely not get a vaccine”. Among all non-vaccinated respondents who did not report that they definitely planned to get vaccinated, respondents were asked reasons for not getting vaccinated: “Which of the following, if any, are reasons that you [probably will/probably won't/definitely won't] [get a COVID-19 vaccine/won't receive all required doses of a COVID-19 vaccine]”. Response options, in which respondents could select all that apply, were: (1) I am concerned about possible side effects of a COVID-19 vaccine, (2) I don't know if a COVID-19 vaccine will work, (3) I don't believe I need a COVID-19 vaccine, (4) I don't like vaccines, (5) My doctor has not recommended it, (6) I plan to wait and see if it is safe and may get it later, (7) I think other people need it more than I do right now, (8) I am concerned about the cost of a COVID-19 vaccine, (9) I don't trust COVID-19 vaccines, (10) I don't trust the government, and (11) Other (please specify). These questions underwent expert review at the Census Bureau and federal partner agencies, as well as cognitive testing labs at the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Centre for Health Statistics.
Sociodemographic variables assessed were age group, sex, race/ethnicity, educational status, annual household income, insurance status, previous COVID-19 diagnosis, difficulty in paying for usual household expenses in the last seven days, receipt of benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the Food Stamp Program, having enough food to eat, and housing type. Age was categorized as 18–49, 50–64, and ≥65 years. Race/ethnicity was categorized as non-Hispanic (NH) white, NH black, Hispanic, NH Asian, and NH other/multiple races. Educational status was categorized as some high school or less, some college or college graduate, and above college graduate. Annual household income was categorized as <$35,000, $35,000–$49,999, $50,000–$74,999, ≥$75,000, or whether it was not reported. Insurance status was defined as having insurance or not having insurance. Previous COVID-19 diagnosis was defined as a “yes” response to the following question: “Has a doctor or other healthcare provider ever told you that you have COVID-19?” Having enough food to eat was categorized as “yes” if the respondent indicated having enough food to eat, regardless of whether the food is or is not always the kind of food that the respondent wanted to eat. Having enough food to eat was categorized as “no” if the respondent indicated that he/she sometimes or often did not have enough to eat. Housing type was categorized as (1) single-family home (defined as a one-family house detached from any other house), (2) condo or townhouse (defined as a one-family house attached to one or more houses), (3) multi-unit housing (defined as a building with two or more apartments), or (4) other (i.e. mobile home, boat, van, or recreational vehicle).
Receipt of ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and intent to get vaccinated was assessed for each survey wave overall and by sociodemographic characteristics and geographic area. Because the vaccination intent questions were only asked of those who were not vaccinated or did not plan to be fully vaccinated, measuring intent over time would show bias as more people get vaccinated (reducing the sample size of those who are asked about intent). To reduce this potential for bias, vaccination intent was assessed among everyone in the sample, including those who were vaccinated . We categorized “definite intent” as those that had at least one dose of the vaccine or those who reported that they would “definitely” be vaccinated, and “probable intent” as those that had at least one dose of the vaccine or those who reported that they would “definitely or probably” be vaccinated. Definite and probable intent to get vaccinated were examined by sociodemographic characteristics and region, state, and select MSAs for six waves of data collection (6–18 January, 20 January–1 February, 3–15 February, 17 February–1 March, 3–15 March, and 17–29 March).
Differences in definite and probable intent were assessed from January to March overall and by socioeconomic characteristics and geographic areas. Contrast tests for the differences in proportions, comparing each category to the reference category were conducted with a 0.05 significance level (α = 0.05). Factors associated with definite and probable intent were examined in multivariable logistic regression models combining data from January to March. Prevalence ratios were assessed for vaccination intent while adjusting for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, educational status, annual household income, previous COVID-19 diagnosis, difficulty paying for household expenses, receipt of SNAP or Food Stamp benefits, having enough food to eat, and housing type. Proportions and 95%CIs of reasons for not getting vaccinated were stratified by three categories of intent (e.g. probably, probably won't, and definitely won't get a COVID-19 vaccine) from January to March, and differences were assessed by t-tests. Analyses accounted for the survey design and replicate weights using balanced replicate weighting procedures in SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc.) and Stata (version 16.1). All results presented in this report are significant and noted otherwise if they are not.
Differences in intent
Receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and definite and probable intent increased from 6 January to 29 March 2021 (Figure 1). Specifically, vaccination receipt and definite intent to get vaccinated increased from 54.7% in early January to 72.3% in late March, for an increase of 17.6 percentage points (pp). Potentially achievable coverage, or vaccination receipt and intent to definitely or probably get vaccinated, increased from 78.4% in early January to 84.4% in late March, for an increase of 6.0 pp. The proportion of adults who definitely did not plan to get vaccinated decreased from 8.8% in early January to 7.6% in late March; however, this difference was not significant. Definite and probable intent to get vaccinated increased across all sociodemographic characteristics from early January to late March
Vaccination intent by socioeconomic status
In multivariable analyses, factors associated with intent to definitely or probably get vaccinated were age group, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, annual household income, insurance status, previous COVID-19 diagnosis, difficulty paying for household expenses, receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the Food Stamp Program, having enough food to eat, and housing type (CSVDisplay Table
Reasons for not getting vaccinated
Reasons for not getting vaccinated changed slightly from January to March (20], the fact that people with lower incomes and those without health insurance were less likely to get the vaccine highlights the importance of understanding other barriers facing this population, including hesitancy and other logistical barriers.
It is concerning that people with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19 were less likely to get vaccinated or intend to get vaccinated and that the belief that the vaccine is not needed increased by 2–5 percentage points from January to March. Communicating to the public about the need for vaccination despite a history of COVID infection is important since it remains uncertain if infection confers immunity and if so, the duration of protection. The CDC recommends that people be vaccinated regardless of the history of prior infection of SARS-CoV-2 .
COVID-19 vaccination coverage and intent varied by HHS region, state, and MSA. From January to March, vaccination intent was lowest in Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee). Lower vaccination and intent among these southeastern states may be driven by access issues, such as vaccine supply, vaccination clinic availability, lack of prioritization of vulnerable groups, or vaccine hesitancy . Previous studies have found that states and counties with high social vulnerability (poverty, unemployment, low income, and no high school diploma) had lower vaccination receipts . States can increase vaccination coverage and intent by (1) increasing confidence in vaccines among vulnerable groups, (2) monitoring and addressing barriers to vaccination, (3) directing vaccines to vulnerable communities, (4) offering free transportation to vaccination sites or making vaccination sites at more accessible locations, and (5) engaging communities to build trust and collaboration . More efforts are needed to understand these differences among states to identify best practices for improving COVID-19 receipt.
The findings in this study are subject to several limitations. First, although sampling methods and data weighting were designed to produce nationally representative results, respondents might not be fully representative of the general U.S. adult population. For example, a report found that data from the Household Pulse Survey may overestimate COVID-19 vaccination compared to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker, which is derived from provider-reported state Immunization Information Systems . Second, vaccination status was self-reported and is subject to social desirabilitybias. Third, the HPS has a low response rate (<10%); although the non-response bias assessment conducted by the Census Bureau found that the survey weights adjusted for most of this bias , some bias may remain. Finally, the HPS is a cross-sectional survey, and analysis of changes in perception from the same sample of persons was not possible.
Continued disparities in vaccination receipt and intent among different sociodemographic and geographic populations underscore the need for continued efforts to reach underserved communities, many of which are experiencing a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 infections and deaths. Vaccination intent was lowest among younger adults and non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic other racial groups, highlighting the importance of tailoring messages to increase vaccination uptake and confidence among these groups. In addition, despite the vaccine being available to everyone for free, many people, particularly vulnerable populations, are still hesitant about getting vaccinated. Recent polls show that the public’s enthusiasm for getting a COVID-19 vaccination has reached a plateau, and supply is now outstripping demand [24,25]. As public health officials attempt to vaccinate more hesitant groups, understanding barriers to vaccination and increasing confidence in vaccines will be essential to achieve the goal of herd immunity. Sharing clear and accurate messages about COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting vaccines as important for resuming social activities, ensuring that healthcare providers are recommending (or having discussions about the importance of) vaccination, and engaging communities and individuals reinforce the public’s confidence and trust in COVID-19 vaccines .
The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose. None of the authors have financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
Dr. Kimberly Nguyen conceptualized and designed the study, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript.
Ms. Kimchi Nguyen contributed to the conception and design of the study, carried out the analyses and the interpretation of the data, and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Drs. Laura Corlin, Jennifer Allen, and Mei Chung contributed to the conception and design of the study and interpretation of the data and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content.
All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/datasets.html.
I think those are valid points and correlate to my age/health of the individual point. Yet you might argue that the average CNN watcher evaluated their risk as too high. But when I argue with them in the end. They don't trust the data from the vaccine trials. They don't trust Pharma. Here is the hospital and mortality risk by age by the CDC. If they really believed the vaccine was 0 risk they wouldn't have a problem with it. I guess some might consider 8 out of Million chance of a serious side effect (J&J) too risky. But they don't even believe that.
Sure, I suppose so. But you know... CNN influencing people to err on the side of caution would have been just fine by me here, seeing as 700k Americans are dead to this and most of the ones dying now are unvaccinated because they didn't think it was a threat.
Separate names with a comma.