Joe Carter wrote an article on TGC that garnered a plethora of comments and considerable debate on Facebook:
"What Christians should know about vaccines"
Just a few comments in passing:
- I largely agree with what Carter has written.
- I don't quite understand why some or perhaps many anti-vaccination proponents attack either the moral character or the medical knowledge (or lack thereof) of physicians. In short, doctors are either immoral or ignorant (if not both) when it comes to vaccines and vaccination.
a. Doctors are immoral. For example, I've heard alleged that many if not most physicians are part of some vast and mysterious conspiracy to delude the public about the "truth" of vaccines and vaccinations. Like an episode of The X-Files or Fringe.
For one thing, the medical community isn't a single monolithic entity. There are politically conservative physicians, politically progressive physicians, and politically moderate physicians. There are religious physicians and irreligious physicians. And so on and so forth.
Likewise consider the American Medical Association. If I recall, the AMA is the single largest medical organization in the US. It has around 200,000 to 250,000 members. However, there are 1.1 or 1.2 million physicians in the US. Furthermore, the AMA has become politically and socially progressive so I doubt conservative physicians would want to join the AMA. In any case, the AMA doesn't necessarily represent the majority of physicians let alone their political and other views.
However, despite all this diversity among physicians, you know what the majority have in common? Most aren't anti-vaccination.
And what would be the motive for physicians willingly deluding their patients? Money? If so, pediatricians don't make much money for vaccinating their patients. In fact, on average, pediatricians are the lowest paid of all physicians.
What's more, given the growth of the anti-vaccination movement, this argument could be turned around: a pediatrician could become an anti-vaccination proponent if he or she wanted to make tons of money. Speak at anti-vaccination conferences, sell their literature and other resources, etc.
b. Doctors are ignorant. For example, an argument I've heard is that med students don't learn about vaccination and vaccines in medical school. Not "accurately" anyway.
That's just flat out false. Just look at (say) Harvard's or Johns Hopkins' medical school curriculum. Likewise, look at what's tested on the United States Medical Licensing Exams (USMLEs) which all physicians are required to pass in order to practice medicine in the US. There's plenty of material about vaccines, vaccination, immunization, various infectious diseases, public health, and much more in med school curricula around the nation as well as on the USMLEs.
- There are some shady doctors out there. For example, I'd say Andrew Wakefield is a shady former physician. Wakefield is (arguably) the father of the modern anti-vaccination movement which he based on his own (shall we say) less than ethical research and as a result had his medical license revoked. Coincidentally, he still gets paid thousands of dollars to speak at anti-vaccination conferences and the like. However, there are shady people in any field or vocation.
- There's some dissent in almost any field and on almost any topic. However, the majority of physicians support vaccinations.
Modern medical science is one of the greatest blessings of modernity. Ironically, the successes of medical science have made some people complacent or even insolent. They don't remember a time when parents might have 12 children and bury them all.
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, doctors do not have much choice to be pro-vaccination. They need a roof over their head and put food on the table. They must go along with the status quo.
Andrew Wakefield was vindicated. It is misinformation to perpetuate falsehoods about Wakefield character and his discovery. Very few people have actually taken the time to listen to his own story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjqIL7sdus
Third, there have never been a safety study from the CDC on the MRR vaccine, yet we are always assured that it is "safe." In addition, there has been a study on it by an objective, reputable organization which clearly showed a link between autism and the MMR.
https://youtu.be/Bjvjf4MnFqc
We need to do the science, but Big Pharm refuses to support independent safety studies. It is for the greater good that we cease vaccinations until safety studies are conducted.
Thanks,
Alan
"First, doctors do not have much choice to be pro-vaccination. They need a roof over their head and put food on the table. They must go along with the status quo."
Delete1. Many states offer free vaccinations. That's from the state government.
2. Patients with Medicare or Medicaid can receive free vaccinations too. Speaking in general, physicians often make little and often simply break even if a patient uses Medicare or Medicaid. That's why some or many physicians simply won't accept patients paying via Medicare or Medicaid.
3. At any rate, most doctors don't even administer common vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine). As such, most doctors don't rely on vaccines for their income.
4. It's primarily pediatricians and family physicians who administer the common vaccines. (Although there are some specialists who administer some vaccines but these aren't the common vaccines. Perhaps in rare cases they might administer a common vaccine, but again that's rare and so they wouldn't be doing it for profit but to treat the patient.)
5. In general, infectious disease physicians don't administer common vaccines, but they're the experts when it comes to, well, infectious diseases - what they are, how to treat them, etc.
6. Pediatricians and/or family physicians don't make much off of vaccines either. You can see the billing codes for common vaccines straight from the American Academy of Pediatrics, then ask various health insurance companies what they'll reimburse for each code.
7. Pediatricians and/or family physicians could focus on more lucrative procedures if they wanted to make more money. In fact, some or many do. Some or many won't even offer vaccines.
8. I've even heard there's some debate among pediatricians over whether it's better for them to stop offering vaccinations because it's not very profitable for them, because of patients who are ready to sue them, and/or because it's become too controversial. However, the majority position is this would be bad. Pediatricians should live by the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence ("do no harm"). It would arguably be harmful for the public good if enough physicians stopped offering vaccines.
9. Of course, like I pointed out in my post, there are shady physicians out there. Such as physicians who sell their souls to greed or other vices and make lots of money off of hocking vaccines. There are physicians who shill for drug companies to get a nice paycheck. However, the same could be said for physicians who are anti-vaccination and make tons of money off of their anti-vaccination position as "medical experts" and the like. However, these physicians are (thankfully) in the minority. The majority of physicians don't make anything off of vaccinations and even pediatricians don't make much off of vaccinations.
"Andrew Wakefield was vindicated. It is misinformation to perpetuate falsehoods about Wakefield character and his discovery. Very few people have actually taken the time to listen to his own story"
Delete1. Wakefield's medical license was never reinstated. He's still forbidden to practice medicine. So I don't see how he was "vindicated".
2. Have you ever seen Wakefield's research? I have. Anyone with minimal knowledge of how medical research works can see it's clearly bad research and quite arguably unethical research. So I'm basing my opinions about Wakefield primarily on his own research.
3. For example, see this paper. A very basic problem is Wakefield has only enrolled 12 children in this particular study, but from this small and unrepresentative sample size, Wakefield draws the conclusion that the MMR vaccine is "implicated" in autism. That itself is a highly specious conclusion to put it mildly. And Wakefield has only since double-downed on these claims despite knowing better as a physician.
4. Yes, Wakefield continues to justify his behavior today. He's charismatic. He offers smooth-sounding answers that sound plausible to laypeople. However, people who have taken a look at his actual research are anything but convinced by him.
"Third, there have never been a safety study from the CDC on the MRR vaccine, yet we are always assured that it is "safe.""
1. See here for starters:
"CDC: Vaccine Safety Research"
"CDC: Vaccine Safety Publications"
2. One of the better and more thorough studies on vaccine safety was a 2014 meta-analysis published in Vaccine which involved approximately 1.3 million children. Another is a 2015 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association wich involved nearly 100,000 children. It's not just 12 kids like in the aforementioned Wakefield study. Both studies found no significant difference existed in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
"In addition, there has been a study on it by an objective, reputable organization which clearly showed a link between autism and the MMR."
Lol, sorry, but no this video isn't about a study that's "by an objective, reputable organization which clearly showed a link between autism and the MMR". It's from one guy, Dr. Paul Thomas. And in the video, Thomas himself even says this research "it's not publishable...I'm just sharing it because it's so important".
"We need to do the science, but Big Pharm refuses to support independent safety studies."
There's been a lot of "independent safety studies" that don't involve "Big Pharma". That's easy enough to Google.
"It is for the greater good that we cease vaccinations until safety studies are conducted."
The "greater good"? If there are enough people who aren't vaccinated in an area, then it could cause outbreaks and epidemics. Depending on the disease, this could be a serious outbreak or epidemic.
By contrast, Christians ought to be proponents of the public good which includes public health.
"Andrew Wakefield was vindicated. It is misinformation to perpetuate falsehoods about Wakefield character and his discovery. Very few people have actually taken the time to listen to his own story"
DeleteHere's more to the story:
1. Wakefield's study (which I cited above) was co-authored with many other scientists and physicians. There were 13 authors total including Wakefield. Today, Wakefield is the only one who stands by his study. The other 12 physicians and scientists have disavowed this study.
2. Actually, to call it a "study" is overly generous. It's nothing like a randomized controlled study. It's really just a description of what happened to 12 kids.
3. Wakefield doctored his study (pardon the pun). For example, he changed the records involved in the study. This gives the appearance that the study supports his conclusions.
4. The children recruited in Wakefield's study were recruited by an anti-MMR group.
5. Wakefield's study was paid for by a group that planned to litigation MMR manufacturers.
6. The original paper from Wakefield (RETRACTED) - Lancet, 1998.
Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association - Lancet, 1999.
Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California - JAMA, 2001.
A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism - NEJM, 2002.
Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination - Pediatrics, 2002.
MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study - Lancet, 2004.
Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan atlanta - Pediatrics, 2004.
Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children - Cochrane Collaboration, 2005.
Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children - Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed by Brian Deer, BMJ, 2011.
Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent - BMJ Editorial, 2011.
(Source)
Speaking of which, I saw the following agenda-driven headline from Breitbart today:
ReplyDelete“Measles Outbreaks in 28 U.S. States, Worst Infection Rate in 25 Years.”
I read further in the article: “no deaths have been reported in the United States.”
Um, okay.
Perfect example of fake news, promoting measles vaccinations.
Measles, shmeasles.
"Speaking of which, I saw the following agenda-driven headline from Breitbart today: “Measles Outbreaks in 28 U.S. States, Worst Infection Rate in 25 Years.” I read further in the article: “no deaths have been reported in the United States.” Um, okay. Perfect example of fake news, promoting measles vaccinations. Measles, shmeasles."
Delete1. Prior to the MMR vaccine against measles (and mumps and rubella), which was first introduced in the 1960s, the measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths per year around the world.
2. In the year 2000, there were approximately 550,000 deaths per year around the world.
3. Today, the measles still causes approximately 110,000 deaths per year around the world. That's predominantly in developing nations which lack access to the MMR vaccine and predominantly among children under 5 years old. In fact, 95% of measles deaths occur in poor African and Asian nations with poor health infrastructure.
4. Short of death, people with the measles can have short-term and long-term morbidities. Children suffer from conjunctivitis, swelling of the eyelids, photophobia, high fevers (105°F), hacking cough, rhinitis, malaise, red lesions with blue-white centers inside the mouth, and red bumpy rashes on the forehead, face, neck, torse, and even feet, since the measles tends to spread downwards on the human body.
5. What's more, the measles virus disseminates to several organ systems and can damage these organ systems. The measles can cause eye damage, heart damage (myocarditis), lung damage (pneumonia), and worst of all brain damage (encephalitis or brain inflammation or swelling). Approximately 10% of children who develop encephalitis will die.
6. Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a form of encephalitis that’s caused by the measles virus. SSPE is a gradual or slowly progressing central nervous system disease. It doesn’t appear until years after the initial infection, when it comes with significant mental deterioration (e.g. dementia) and neuromuscular incoordination. There’s no cure for SSPE, and SSPE is often fatal.
7. Infection with measles during pregnancy is strongly associated with spontaneous abortion. The fetal death rate in pregnant women with measles is 20%.
8. By the way, all these signs and symptoms and morbidities, as well as percentages, are likely worse and higher in developing nations which don't have the medical systems we have in the West. It's quite likely thanks to modern medical science and technology and professionals that measles outbreaks aren't worse for us.
"Wakefield is (arguably) the father of the modern anti-vaccination movement which he based on his own (shall we say) less than ethical research and as a result had his medical license revoked."
ReplyDeleteRather, it is Brian Deer who was unethical, which is documented clearly starting at 19:00 (but the whole video is worth the watch):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjqIL7sdus
Alan
"Rather, it is Brian Deer who was unethical, which is documented clearly starting at 19:00 (but the whole video is worth the watch):"
Delete1. Brian Deer was the journalist who covered Wakefield's demise. However, I don't need to rely on what Deer says about Wakefield. I can look directly at Wakefield's research and judge for myself. Same with other medical researchers (e.g. virologists) and physicians.
2. Suppose Deer is unethical. That says nothing about Wakefield. Both could be unethical. It's not a zero sum game.
Alan
ReplyDeleteI'm deleting your latest comments from my post because I already responded to your latest comments in my very replies to you. You're not arguing in good faith.
I'll continue deleting your comments if they're arguing in bad faith, repetitious, grasping at straws, etc.
Hawk said:
ReplyDelete---
I've heard alleged that many if not most physicians are part of some vast and mysterious conspiracy to delude the public about the "truth" of vaccines and vaccinations.
---
I think they're in the pocket of Big Sugar. Can't give people diabetes if they're dying from measles at age 3!
Lol! :)
DeleteI had never heard of Wakefield before when I was already a year into vaccine skepticism. Also, those measles mortality statistics someone above quoted don’t take into account the fact that most deaths occur in the malnourished third world. In America measles mortality is closer to one in 10,000 Which is the same risk as for undergoing General Anastasia. There is much about the current vaccine schedule that is just silly… Did you know that they vaccinate newborns with an Hpv Vaccine by default on their first day of life… HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that all newborns have absolutely no way of catching unless their mother is infected, which comes to light during standard prenatal testing
ReplyDeleteYeah, it couldn't possibly be due to the fact that there are fewer measles cases in areas where there is lots of vaccinations and therefore the hospital can actually focus their care when someone gets it. Hospitals CLEARLY have infinite resources and can provide everyone the exact same level of care when millions of people get hit by a bug because they were too stupid to follow basic preventative common sense.
DeleteAs for HPV, it's not like are more than 100 different viruses that are HPV, about 2/3 of which are NOT sexually transmitted, or that the CDC recommends vaccination between 9-13 *years* old. No, facts like that are clearly invented by the gummit because...um...hey, look at the time! I mean, why would anti-vaxxers totally make up something just because logic, reason, and reality oppose them?
"I had never heard of Wakefield before when I was already a year into vaccine skepticism."
DeleteAh, but his work is nearly ubiquitous among the anti-vaccination crowd so you needn't have heard of him to have come across his work - and/or its repercussions!
"Also, those measles mortality statistics someone above quoted don’t take into account the fact that most deaths occur in the malnourished third world"
Wut? You obviously didn't read my comments. I literally cited this fact, for example, when I said "95% of measles deaths occur in poor African and Asian nations with poor health infrastructure".
Measles can infect well nourished people too.
"In America measles mortality is closer to one in 10,000 Which is the same risk as for undergoing General Anastasia."
Another point I already addressed above. But again I guess you didn't read what I wrote.
"There is much about the current vaccine schedule that is just silly… Did you know that they vaccinate newborns with an Hpv Vaccine by default on their first day of life… HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that all newborns have absolutely no way of catching unless their mother is infected, which comes to light during standard prenatal testing"
1. That's false. Minimum age for the HPV is 9 years old, but in practice it's typically done later if it's done.
2. It's "recommended" for the sexually active. It's not "forced" on anyone against their will. If anyone was coerced, then it's unethical and illegal.
3. You pointed out an exception (i.e. a pregnant woman suspected of having HPV), but even your exception isn't quite correct. As a rule, doctors don't think HPV is transmissible from mother to child, or if it is it's quite uncommon, so even if a woman is infected with HPV, doctors will generally just monitor her throughout the pregnancy. If treatment is needed, it usually takes place after delivery.
4. Most physicians don't even test for HPV unless they have a good reason to (e.g. the mother tells them she has slept with multiple partners, the mother has a history of HPV infection). However, the screening test isn't a "standard prenatal testing". Rather it's a Pap smear.
*oops, meant to say HEP B, not HPV. hep b is given to all newborns before they leave (unless their parents, if wise, object)
Delete"*oops, meant to say HEP B, not HPV. hep b is given to all newborns before they leave (unless their parents, if wise, object)"
Delete"Did you know that they vaccinate newborns with an [HBV] Vaccine by default on their first day of life… [HBV] is a sexually transmitted disease that all newborns have absolutely no way of catching unless their mother is infected, which comes to light during standard prenatal testing"
Okay, I'll replace HPV with HBV (Hep B) and respond:
1. Yes, the HBV vaccine is typically given at birth or at least within 12-24 hours of birth. However, parents can refuse.
2. The concern is not only the mother, but any other household members that come into contact with the newborn baby too. Globally there are approximately 250 million people infected with HBV.
3. HBV can be either an acute or chronic infection of the liver. In adults, HBV is typically acute and transmitted via human bodily fluids (e.g. blood, saliva, urine, semen, breast milk). In babies, however, HBV is typically chronic and transmitted via the birth canal and/or breast milk (vertical transmission).
4. In addition, babies often have no symptoms or mild symptoms. This is primarily due to the fact that babies have a developing immune system. Babies almost always become chronic carriers. The issue with being a chronic carrier is chronic inflammation in chronic carriers often results in cirrhosis and/or liver cancer (i.e. hepatocellular carcinoma). That’s why HBV is more serious in babies than adults.
Also, I like most parents who do not vaccinate, I simply think it should be the parents choice, not that vaccines should be banned or not used by others
ReplyDelete"Also, I like most parents who do not vaccinate, I simply think it should be the parents choice, not that vaccines should be banned or not used by others"
DeleteIn general, I agree. In general, I think it's foolish, but people are allowed to be fools.
That said, I think there may be exceptions. Personal autonomy doesn't necessarily trump everything and anything.