I'm going to opine about the anti-vaccination movement. I'm not a virologist or infectious-disease specialist. I'm just speaking as a layman.
What accounts to the anti-vaccination movement? Off-hand, I can think of two reasons. Maybe there are more:
i) There's a well-earned distrust of gov't. Public health officials routinely make pro forma statements about how something is safe, how something is under control, not because that's the case, but because they think it's their duty to quell or forestall "mass hysteria." As a result, the public discounts their assurances.
In addition, I think the prestige of science has suffered from the politicization of science, viz. alarmist claims about global warming.
In addition, I think the prestige of science has suffered from the politicization of science, viz. alarmist claims about global warming.
ii) I think mass vaccination is a victim of its own success. Because it's been so effective in eliminating certain pandemics or epidemics which used to be commonplace, the threat has receded from public consciousness. For many people, the danger of an epidemic or pandemic is just an abstraction. Many people are crisis-driven. They don't take precautions. Unless they experience something, it isn't real to them.
iii) Measles might not sound that alarming, yet it's a major killer of children in the Third World. Moreover, that statistic is misleading. Absent vaccination, the figure of childhood deaths from measles would be far higher.
iv) Is it just happenstance that the drastic reduction in some epidemics or pandemics coincided with mass vaccination? Is it just happenstance that outbreaks or epidemics occur in areas where there is no mass vaccination? Although one may rightly be skeptical of what public health officials say, don't the statistics speak for themselves?
v) Unless I'm mistaken, there's no anti-vaccination movement within the medical community. Don't physicians have their own children vaccinated? They wouldn't continue to do that unless they thought it was a wise precaution. To be sure, you can have groupthink in medical science. My point, though, is that this isn't like public health officials saying things they don't believe.
vi) Vaccination is not risk-free. A statistical fraction of vaccinated individuals will react badly to vaccination. So it's a cost/benefit assessment. Do the general benefits outweigh the occasional risks? To my knowledge, mass vaccination has been overwhelmingly beneficial to public health and safety.
vii) Finally, although some critics might dismiss the anti-vaccination movement as another expression of the Christian lunatic fringe, it's demographically diverse. There've been anti-vacination movements in Sweden, Japan, and West Germany. Hardly hotbeds of Christian fundamentalism. In addition:
Who is choosing not to vaccinate? The answer is surprising. The area with the most cases of whooping cough in California is Los Angeles County, and no group within that county has lower immunization rates than residents living between Malibu and Marina Del Rey, home to some of the wealthiest and most exclusive suburbs in the country. At the Kabbalah Children's Academy in Beverly Hills, 57% of children are unvaccinated. At the Waldorf Early Childhood Center in Santa Monica, it's 68%, according to the Hollywood Reporter's analysis of public-health data.
These are the kind of immunization rates that can be found in Chad or South Sudan. But parents in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica see vaccines as unnatural—something that conflicts with their healthy lifestyle. And they have no problem finding fringe pediatricians willing to cater to their irrational beliefs.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/paul-a-offit-the-anti-vaccination-epidemic-1411598408
And then there is, CDC Responds to Allegation it Omitted Vaccine-Autism Study Link
ReplyDeleteby sattkisson on August 28, 2014
http://sharylattkisson.com/cdc-responds-to-allegation-it-omitted-vaccine-autism-study-link
I'm aware of that controversy. I'm not qualified to comment on it.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I think we have to take what public health officials say with a grain of salt. That, however, doesn't change the fact that, to my knowledge, vaccination saves far more lives, as well as preventing far more disabilities, than the occasional deleterious side-effects of vaccination. So there's a trade-off. The good of the many v. the good of the few.
Speaking as someone who hasn't done the standard vaccination regime for his kids, I think the term "anti-vaccination" is tendentious. I am not opposed to vaccination per se, but rather to specific vaccinations that seem to have high correlation with severe neurological disorders.
ReplyDeleteIs it just happenstance that the drastic reduction in some epidemics or pandemics coincided with mass vaccination?
Sometimes, actually yes. Now, I'm not denying that some vaccinations are indeed very effective. But take smallpox, for example. It basically disappeared in Europe at the same time that a vaccine was developed; and its decline is hailed as one of the great success stories of vaccination. Yet to the best of my knowledge, only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated against it. How was the disease eliminated in the other 90% of people?
Is it just happenstance that the drastic reduction in some epidemics or pandemics coincided with mass vaccination?
True. The trouble is, how many doctors are even aware of, let alone have investigated, all the evidence for links between certain vaccinations and autism? Usually what you hear from those who take the establishment line is a flat, blanket denial that any such evidence exists whatsoever. They are simply unaware of the existence of things like this:
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.co.nz/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.html
Indeed, they seem to have a very strong a priori faith that such studies literally cannot exist.
I'm no expert, but I'll speculate on three factors that, in some cases, account for how epidemics naturally burn out.
Deletei) When Charleston SC was originally settled in the 17C, it was a very healthy place to live. However, that changed.
To begin with, farmers planted rice. Rice patties became breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Malarial swamps.
The Civil war devastated the S. Carolinian coastal agrarian economy. And that may account for the natural steady decline of malaria. And, of course, nowadays, many ponds are sprayed with insecticide.
ii) Likewise, because Charleston was a major port town, many diseases were imported into Charleston from sailing ships.
iii) Finally, some epidemics may burn out because they cull the members of that generation who are most susceptible. The survivors are more resistant.
In that respect, some epidemics might be more cyclical. Coming, going, and recurring as a newer generation comes on the scene.
It may also be that some survivors develop a natural immunity which they transmit to offspring. Or simply that hardier specimens are more likely to breed hardier specimens. Natural selection.
@Dominic Bnonn Tennant
DeleteThanks for your thoughts. Always interesting to read.
"The trouble is, how many doctors are even aware of, let alone have investigated, all the evidence for links between certain vaccinations and autism? Usually what you hear from those who take the establishment line is a flat, blanket denial that any such evidence exists whatsoever. They are simply unaware of the existence of things like this:"
1. Not sure what you mean by "the establishment"? The medical establishment as a whole? A particular medical college or society? An institution like the CDC or WHO?
2. If we assume the "establishment" does have such a "line" in the first place - i.e. "a flat, blanket denial that any such evidence exists whatsoever," then it's possible these pronouncements are given by public health officials in their capacity as public health officials (not, say, as physicians, even if some public health officials are physicians). If so, then perhaps you're unintentionally mistaking what public health officials say for what physicians say?
Sure, it's possible they may rely on physicians and scientists for their pronouncements. But the point is their pronouncements don't occur in a vacuum void of political and social considerations or whatever. Public officials could also be misconstruing what physicians and scientists relate to them.
3. There may be "establishment" organizations that say this in a way the CDC might say "Ebola will never come to the US." But that's hardly what physicians would unanimously agree on. For example, anecdotally, I've sat in with pediatricians to whom parents ask about vaccinations for their child. If parents are unsure about vaccinations, the pediatricians will give them the pros as well as cons, and be open to answering any question they may have.
4. I suspect you may be making a tendentious characterization about doctors and the medical establishment (which would be ironic if so).
5. Not all evidence is created equal. For example, a case report about vaccines and autism is far less valuable than a randomized controlled trial about the same.
6. Not sure what you mean by "all the evidence"? If "all the evidence" means vetting every single poster, conference presentation, abstract, journal paper, and any other type of study ever published on any and all types of vaccinations and their relation to autism, then that's a pretty tall order! It'd be like saying, I won't believe a man has landed on the moon until I can review for myself all the NASA footage, news reports at the time, inspect all the rockets and other equipment, etc.
7. What'd be better would be to investigate the relevant, good quality evidence. But that means understanding whether a study is relevant, of good quality, appropriately designed, has significant statistical power, and so on in the first place.
Otherwise, one could simply cite hundreds of studies without understanding what they mean. For example, there are plenty of "academic" or scientific journals in homeopathy with scores of studies which purport to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy.
8. In fact, there are relevant, good quality systematic reviews. For example, see here.
9. By the way, the above notes in its summary of the results section:
"Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism..."
One may agree or disagree with this sentence about the likelihood of vaccines being associated with autism. But my immediate point is simply to say the sentence is hardly equivalent to "a flat, blanket denial that any such evidence exists whatsoever."
10. I also appreciated Jeremy Pierce's comments.
Just wanted to quickly add:
Delete1. There has been an apparent increase in the prevalence of autism and autism spectrum disorders over the last several decades. Some people believe this is directly due to vaccination. Usually cited is vaccination for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR).
However, much of this is actually due to changes in case definition as well as an increased awareness of autism.
As for the rest of it, multiple large and well-designed studies and systematic reviews have thus far found insufficient evidence to support a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism (e.g. the Immunization Safety Review Committee). Please note this is not identical to "a flat, blanket denial that any such evidence exists whatsoever."
2. Also, an important criterion for establishing causality between vaccination and autism is a plausible biological mechanism. One mechanism that's been proposed is the MMR vaccine causing decreased viral immunity. But the evidence to support this view is similarly insufficient. In fact, proposed mechanisms largely appear to be theoretical at this point, at least as far as I've seen.
3. What's more, there is evidence about other factors including genetics playing a significant role in the development of autism.
4. Plus, vaccination (including the MMR vaccine) has led to a significant decline in the incidence of childhood diseases which often have severe sequelae. As such, one could suggest withholding vaccines from a child because of a hypothetical risk places the child at risk for actual infection with actual sequelae.
Anyway, as Steve noted, it's basically a cost-benefit assessment.
5. That said, it's impossible to completely rule out the hypothesis "the MMR vaccine does not cause autism," because it'd imply the MMR vaccine can never cause autism, which can't be absolutely proven.
Bnonn said:
Delete---
But take smallpox, for example. It basically disappeared in Europe at the same time that a vaccine was developed; and its decline is hailed as one of the great success stories of vaccination. Yet to the best of my knowledge, only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated against it. How was the disease eliminated in the other 90% of people?
---
About a week ago, I actually just happened to read a section in "The Coming Plague" that dealt with this. According to that book, what happened is there was an initial level of voluntary vaccinations through most of the first world countries. Then, the WHO (who was primarily responsible for doing the vaccinations) would go to various outbreaks (typically in third world countries) and vaccinate as many people as they could in the outbreak region. Thus, where outbreaks were occurring is where the vaccines were most heavily profligated. In that sense, it's like fighting a fire. You don't have to water the entire forest to put out a fire--you just need to put water on the fire itself.
On the last point in the original post, the center of gravity of the anti-vaccination movement is rich white liberals, many of whom are either secular or New Agey. There is an infection of this stuff in homeschooling circles as well, but that's not where the movers and shakers are. They're Jenny McCarthy types. The people who like to talk about the Republican War on Science never mention that there's a Democratic War on Science, and it's not just related to the fudging of environmental science. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a leader in bad science, and he's right on board with anti-vaccine people on this issue.
ReplyDeleteThere have been all manner of reason to think the anti-vaccination movement is just like any other conspiracy theory in its irrationality, willingness to make ad hoc adjustments to its claims in the face of evidence while not giving up the core, unsupported (and now decisively refuted) hoax in the UK that began the whole thing, much like what the Jehovah's Witnesses did when their predictions of Jesus' return turned out not to be right. But I think what we've discovered most recently about autism should be absolutely decisive. They've found structures and patterns in the autistic brain that involve development that normally takes place in utero that never happened. That means autism begins in utero. No way vaccines are behind that. And the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that it's genetically linked. Whatever environmental triggers there might be, it can't be as late as vaccination. Most people don't notice the symptoms until after that point, but they're the sort of symptoms that you won't notice that late unless you know what to look for. Those who know what to look for can detect them much earlier.
The CDC thing has been decisively refuted. See the snopes.com piece on that:
I'm not anti-vaccine, but there seems to be a reckless abandon when it comes to the number of vaccines we have and the huge doses (multi-vaccines). Our pediatrician works with us and we have an alternative timeline we follow in administering vaccines to our children. Why would we do this? For a couple of reasons. 1) to give our children vaccination against the greatest potential threats, and 2) we hope to allow their immune systems to activate as God designed as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteVaccines are designed to force your body to react against dead viruses. I'm not a medical professional, but it seems like training your body to react against non-threats has the potential of backfiring...and one way could be the plethora of allergies we're experiencing. Allergies are the product a body reacting against non-threats. To be clear, I don't mean the faux hipster allergies (think pollen, as one example).
By way of anecdote, I was talking to a doctor from our church and the issue of vaccines came up. He thought I was going to spout off autism fears but when I expressed concern about overstimulating the a child's still developing immune system against non-threats and that it could increase risk of allergies, he very quickly acknowledged there could be something to that...again, anecdote...not proof. Does that mean your children are doomed if you "over-vaccinate?" Of course not, God is sovereign.
A tendency toward obsessive vaccination coupled with finding new vaccinations for virtually everything, stems from our lack of faith in God's sovereignty. He did equip us with an immune system, afterall. Likewise, a hyper-reaction against vaccines (like all the faux hipster diet fads) also stems from a lack of faith in God's sovereignty. There are real sicknesses and diseases you don't want to get - especially children with still developing immune systems. For the very same reason, it may be that we are compromising our children's God-given immune systems by over-vaccinating.
There are other moral issues, such as vaccines that use fetal tissue. I don't doubt that God would use this against us in different forms of judgment.
Food for thought.
The fetal tissue argument is erroneous. No fetal tissue occurs in any vaccines. They would be rejected, the same way organs are usually rejected if they're not a close match. What actually goes on is that human fetal tissue from two aborted babies decades ago was donated by the parents of those children to grow cell lines that are now used to incubate viruses for certain vaccinations. The viruses are grown in cells that are produced from existing cells that are not dead babies. Decades ago some babies were killed, and their cells led to further cells that are many generations of cells later used for incubating these viruses.
DeleteIs there a moral objection to using those cells? Not really. No honest pro-life person who really thinks about it should have any hesitation in using those cells. Unless you're completely anti-transplant, you couldn't consistently oppose this. If my son gets shot and killed, that's murder, and it's wrong. Is it wrong for me to donate his organs as he's dying? If I kill him, I'm a murderer. Is it even then wrong for me to give permission to use those organs? Is it wrong for doctors to use them? Is it wrong for doctors three decades later to use cells that were many generations of cells later, originally taken from his cells? How is the fact that abortion is murder relevant to the fact that parents can donate their dead children's organs or cells to save lives? Why would it make it immoral to use them? The argument would undermine our entire transplant system and makes complete nonsense of the most important ethical distinctions.
Jeremy,
DeleteThere may be a good argument for using the vaccines developed using the cells of murdered babies, but your example of using organs donated by a murdered boy is bogus. The father signs off on donating in that scenario - not the murder. The most that can be argued is that the boy's parents can be comforted in their grief by the fact their son's death spares the lives of others, also sparing their families the grief they're now experiencing. There's virtue being exercised in such case. In the case of using the cells of a baby murdered by doctors at the direction of her parent(s), virtue is not being exercised. The end result tends toward giving a perceived legitimacy of the murder of infants.
I'm happy to accept an argument for using said vaccines, but not based solely on the numeric weight of lives saved. That weight is great, but if it is great, the loss of the lives of those infants was also great and ought to be acknowledged openly. The end result would be sobering, tending to curb our bloodlust and, Lord willing, lead to repentance.
Sincerely,
Craig
No, in my example I said it doesn't matter if I'm the murderer and give permission for my son's organs to be donated. So the murderer is the one who signs off on it. And it doesn't even matter, because the parents did sign off on those two instances 35 years ago. So the analogy doesn't break down in any of those ways.
DeleteIt's not based solely on the numeric weight of lives saved. This isn't some utilitarian calculus weighing the bad of one thing vs. the good of another thing. My argument is that there isn't the bad to begin with, just the good. There's nothing at all wrong with using these lines of cells, because the lines of cells are not immoral. They exist as a result of an immoral act, but if it's immoral to do something positive with something that results from a sin then we'd have to abort pregnancies resulting from rape. I doubt that's something you'd recommend. If the lines of cells themselves are immoral, then so is a human being who resulted from rape. No pro-life person should be arguing for that.
Jeremy,
DeleteUnfortunately, the hypothetical you set up flies in the face of how the law and medical ethics work. Our context really (not hypothetically) would take into account the donating of your son’s organs if you had murdered him. You can say it doesn’t matter, but the reality is that we actually do recognize the discordance between a man taking the life of a victim and then giving that victim’s organs to others. While the remaining “facts” are identical (dead child with viable with organs), the morality of giving is not. When a parent murders (or attempts to murder) a child, that parent in fact (not hypothetically) forfeits any legal claim to make decisions regarding *any* of their children, let alone that child. Why? By taking a life illegitimately, the gift of viable organs *is not theirs to give*.
For your hypothetical to carry any weight, more facts are needed to complete the picture if it’s to function in our context. For instance, could the mother donate that child’s organs? If she’s not an accessory, of course. She has not forfeited her legal legitimacy as an authority over her children. This would obviously militate against your argument, however, but comport with mine. That little addition of a mother underscores the unhelpfulness of your hypothetical. Let’s say the mother disagreed with the father; whose decision wins out? Very obviously the mother.
So you’d be forced to make a utilitarian argument that the existence of viable organs, no matter how they became available, doesn’t change the fact there are people who could use them. Why deny life to others who in no way brought about the victim’s demise? Again, the organs must be looked upon as *gifts*. Those who need them do not have an inherent claim to them. To receive, they must be given, so the question of legitimacy of *who can give* them has to be addressed otherwise you’re just making a circular argument.
Finally, you are actually wrong about the parents of the murdered babies signing off on donating their tissues for medical advancement. They never did. But even if you were right, I’ve already argued that when a parent illegitimately takes the life of their child (that is, murders them); they forfeit any legitimate decision-making tied to that child.
Sincerely,
Craig
I'm not seeing how the issue of who can legitimately sanction the donation even matters. Both sides of this argument agree that the killing is wrong. Both sides of the argument can agree that the donation is wrong. The original tissue used for deriving the later cells is, therefore, stolen property. Fine. If someone steals my cells and uses them to grow tissue to use for vaccines, then a crime has taken place. But I was never saying nothing wrong had taken place. I was simply saying that moral wrong in producing something doesn't somehow magically infect the later actions that use the resulting cells, as if those cells themselves gain the magical power of being morally wrong simply because they were produced by a wrong action. Again, the rape example. Such an argument would require that we not raise children who were produced because of rape.
DeleteAnd I see no utilitarian argument here. Utilitarianism is the view that consequences, indeed pain and pleasure, are the only morally relevant properties. So a slight difference in pain or pleasure can tip the balances. But one need not be a utilitarian to recognize that consequences can matter morally. (That is, one need not be a thoroughgoing Kantian to be a deontologist, as long as non-consequence elements are important enough to trump consequences much of the time.)
So if one were to give an argument that the consequences outweigh some other moral considerations (which isn't the argument I'm giving), I don't see why it would have to be utiltiarian. One need not be a utiltiarian to think that sometimes it's the right thing to do to kill someone who is truly to blow up a city if that will prevent the explosion. One is using the consequence as a moral reason to take a life, even though it's normally wrong to take a life. The consequences are so severe that they make it right to take the life in that case. One can hold that without thinking a slightly better consequence justifies taking a life, when only a slightly worse consequences would not do so. What's wrong with utiltiarianism is that it so diminishes important moral considerations that it ignores them when the consequences are only slightly different. But any non-Kantian deontologist will recognize that moral principles can be trumped by consequences when they are so severe as to be more important than those other principles. (For example, see Jesus' comments about saving the life of the animal that falls into a pit on the sabbath or his reference to David's willingness to lie when it would save the life of his men. Jesus wasn't being a utilitarian when arguing in that way. He was just recognizing that sometimes some moral principles are more important than others, even though those others are important enough that it's very rare for them to be trumped in such a way. Utilitarians would trump them far more easily.)
@Craig
Delete"Vaccines are designed to force your body to react against dead viruses"
Actually, many vaccines are attenuated.
"training your body to react against non-threats has the potential of backfiring"
Generally speaking, doctors don't vaccinate against "non-threat[ening]" diseases. Generally speaking, vaccinations would be for "non-threats" which have a fair degree of risk of becoming "threats," at least in certain populations or under certain circumstances or the like.
But all this is speaking rather vaguely. We'd need particulars.
"Allergies are the product a body reacting against non-threats"
They can be, but that's hardly the sum total or even the core of what allergies are all about.
"I don't mean the faux hipster allergies (think pollen, as one example)."
Not sure what "faux hipster allergies" are? Pollen is a bona fide allergen for many people.
"I expressed concern about overstimulating the a child's still developing immune system against non-threats and that it could increase risk of allergies, he very quickly acknowledged there could be something to that"
I suspect this isn't really as controversial as you're assuming it is.
"A tendency toward obsessive vaccination coupled with finding new vaccinations for virtually everything, stems from our lack of faith in God's sovereignty."
I don't know what you mean by "obsessive vaccination." It's true vaccinations shouldn't be given for any and every immunizable disease under the sun. But what makes you think this is what doctors are doing?
I'm also not sure what's necessarily wrong with "finding new vaccinations"? Let alone how these "stem from our lack of faith in God's sovereignty"? It's quite possible for a Christian doctor or scientist to conduct medical scientific research for the glory of God, to help others, and so forth.
Besides, it's impossible to "find...new vaccinations for virtually everything" inasmuch as not every (or perhaps even most) disease can be prevented or mitigated by vaccines.
"it may be that we are compromising our children's God-given immune systems by over-vaccinating"
I agree this has the potential to be true in some people. But we'd have to talk specifics. Which vaccines are you referring to? Against which diseases? Among which populations? And so on. Otherwise it's really too vague to be meaningful.
"There are other moral issues, such as vaccines that use fetal tissue."
I agree with Jeremy Pierce's response.
I believe the two cell lines to which Jeremy is referring are the Winstar Institute 38 (WT-38) cell line originally cultured in 1964 as well as the MRC-5 cell line originally cultured in 1970. If I'm not mistaken, I think both cell lines are based on human diploid lung fibroblasts, the former from a three month old female fetus and the latter from a 14 week old male fetus.
I'd add while both babies were intentionally aborted, they weren't intentionally aborted for the purposes of obtaining cells. Perhaps intent would be a factor to consider in the ethical calculus as well.
Also, I don't believe these cells constitute any part of the vaccine. Rather, the viruses are cultured in these cell lines.
@Craig
DeleteOr perhaps you'd argue it was immoral to develop the polio vaccine, research cancer, research AIDS, etc. with the HeLa cell line taken from Henrietta Lacks?
@rocking
ReplyDeleteYou said: Generally speaking, doctors don't vaccinate against "non-threat[ening]" diseases.
That's not what I said...in fact, you quoted me and managed to completely misunderstand. I did say that "training your body to react against non-threats has the potential of backfiring.” To use another term, “blowback.” I don’t doubt that vaccines are effective at vaccinating against real threats (I vaccinate my children, afterall), but by stimulating our bodies against *dead* viruses using multidoses with adjuvants (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html), there could be unintended consequences…like increased allergies. I pointed to pollen, not as a hipster faux allergy, but a real one. Pollen presents no danger to the body yet the allergy sufferer’s immune system treats it like a threat.
You said: “I suspect this isn't really as controversial as you're assuming it is.”
I never said it was controversial. It is rarely discussed because most people are discussing autism and Guillain-Barre syndrome.
You said: “I'm also not sure what's necessarily wrong with ‘finding new vaccinations’?”
I didn’t say that, either. We are trying to vaccinate against too many diseases…example? the HPV vaccine. Yes, I did said “virtually every” but that’s called hyperbole. EVERYONE does it (yes, more hyperbole, but makes the point…which is the point of hyperbole).
@rocking continued...
DeleteYou’ve also asked me to specify which vaccines pose the threat of compromising our immune systems. I don’t need to argue that. In fact, I’ve already said I vaccinate my children on a different schedule than what is promoted by pediatricians. I’m not saying certain vaccines negatively impact our immune systems since my concern is with the cumulative effect – so there’s no need to make a point I never set out to establish. My initial comment was simply to underscore that there are more issues involved with regard to being cautious about vaccination beyond autism fears. That was it.
@rocking III
DeleteOur practice as a family is to simply spread our children’s vaccinations out over longer periods of time. I could be wrong in *at least* two ways: 1) vaccines may pose zero threat to compromising our immune systems, or 2) vaccines may compromise our immune systems no matter what schedule you follow. That is why I make it a point to simply trust God’s sovereignty.
What medical reason do I have to spread out vaccinations? None, really. I looked into it about 6 years ago and asked my wife to look into it as well, and she read Robert Sears’ The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child. It was through that book that I became comfortable with the overall safety of vaccines. I remain unconvinced that research can isolate variables to the extent we can know what other effects (if any) vaccines may pose to our immune systems. Laymen constantly make medical decisions, and sometimes they do boil down to a hunch. There are just too many factors that we can’t possibly isolate the issues, so I have chosen what I think is a more reasonable approach.
As I said to Jeremy, I welcome arguments that justify using vaccines that were developed using fetal tissue from aborted children. Seeing that we live in a blood-thirsty climate regarding abortion, there is good reason to recognize, in a very public way, that these vaccines came at the cost of lives and that our continued reliance on them must stop. I’m no Roman Catholic, but I do find the Vatican’s statement on the use of these vaccines helpful (http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm):
“Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a. proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles.
In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population - especially with regard to pregnant women.”
@Craig
Delete"My initial comment was simply to underscore that there are more issues involved with regard to being cautious about vaccination beyond autism fears. That was it."
1. Actually, anyone can read or re-read your "initial comment" and see this wasn't "simply" all you said. You made other points as well. (Quite apart from whether one agrees or disagrees.)
2. At the same time, some of your statements are unclear or confused. This makes it more time-consuming to respond to you inasmuch as one would have to seek to clarify or unknot your statements. I doubt this would be time well-spent.
3. Not to mention you keep going off on tangents to make soapbox speeches decrying this or that perceived evil. Of course, these may be legitimate to discuss in their own right, but they're far afield from the topic at hand. Rabbit trails.
4. Likewise you make statements which appear to contradict one another. For example:
"I’ve already said I vaccinate my children on a different schedule than what is promoted by pediatricians."
Yet you originally said: "Our pediatrician works with us and we have an alternative timeline we follow in administering vaccines to our children."
So apparently there's at least one pediatrician (i.e. yours) who doesn't quite fit how you broadbrush pediatricians as a whole. (Perhaps you would've done better to say something like, "what is promoted by many pediatricians" or "what is promoted by the ACPeds.")
5. Anyway, lots more to say. But for better or for worse, I don't have the time to reply to every single point you've made.
Also, for better or for worse, I'm a med student, so I'm at least familiar with the medical scientific and ethical issues, and I've already made some relevant comments to these issues in this thread.
6. A point you bring up which may be worth responding to, in large part because it sounds like it's your main source for much of what you've said here, is Dr. Bob Sears' book. However, this would take a fuller length treatment. I may try to do this if I can find the time. We'll see.
@Rocking
DeleteI've been pretty patient with you while you've been ignorantly combative. This will be my final comment in response to you on this thread, so here you go point by point:
#1. Hopefully everyone does re-read my initial comment. I stand by my summary: I was pointing out that there are more reasons than autism fears to be cautious about vaccinations. I raised more than one issue, but those issues made the same point: that there are more *issues* than a fear of autism to be cautious about.
#2. I don't think I can respond to this since you're waiving your finger around in the air without touching anything.
#3. More finger-waving at nothing in particular.
#4. This is your failure at basic reading comprehension. Our pediatrician promotes a different schedule than we follow. He works with us by *deviating* from his normal practice.
#5. I’m not sure you’ve actually replied to what I’ve said. You’ve managed to fundamentally misread/misstate what I’ve said. I’m glad you are in med school, hopefully you take more care in listening to your instructors and future patients than you’ve taken in our exchanges.
#6. Don’t bother responding. While you are a med student, you are also *only a med student*. If you read or look into Dr. Sear’s work with the same level of (non)care you have in our exchanges, I can only hope it will be at least as (un)enlightening.
@Craig
DeleteI haven't been combative with you at all. At worst, I've been curt, but I don't see anything wrong with being curt. It sounds like you're misconstruing a whole lot of this (e.g. reading a tone into this which isn't actually present), and thus taking things the wrong way. If so, then I'm afraid it's a bit ironic for you to raise the charge that I'm failing at basic reading comprehension. Anyway, that's cool, I'm perfectly happy if others wish to read through the exchange, for whatever reason(s). In particular I'd recommend Steve Hays' and Jeremy Pierce's comments which I thought intelligent, reasonable, and informed.