This is a response to a comment of Peter, a regular visitor, about whether or not to vaccinate our children, more formally called vaccine hesitancy. I place it as an entry instead of a simple comment because it involves two questions that I consider fundamental: (1) the principle of the non-falsifiable hypothesis as a litmus test of whether we are facing a pseudoscience, and my metaphor of conspiracy theorists who leave the courtroom every time the prosecutor speaks. Peter wrote:
I’m truly surprised that you would express such a credulous stance on this issue, with mine being that vaccination is a branch of medicine just as fraudulent and pernicious as biological psychiatry.
I’m not sure the analogy is adequate. Although psychiatrists cannot present their central hypothesis (that mental illness is a biomedical entity) in a falsifiable way, I suppose that medical science can present, without violating falsifiability, the claim that vaccines prevent, say, smallpox, pertussis or measles. ‘I suppose’ I wrote because I haven’t listened to the ‘prosecutor’ in the case of vaccines. And this brings me to Peter’s second statement:
Finally, you like to speak of listening to the Prosecution and the Defense to come to a fair conclusion about any contentious topic. So to what extent have you given the “Prosecution” a fair hearing on this issue?
For someone who has not entered the courtroom of the debate between those who believe in vaccines and those who don’t, the best analogy wouldn’t be the member of a jury. That would mean spending much time as those members do in American movies. Furthermore, the government compels them not to walk away while listening to both sides. Rather, I would be one of the citizens who listen to the trial from the seats, a layman who is not obliged to follow the case closely but simply wants to get a general idea of the controversy.
To argue, without using much time, that psychiatry is a false science one just has to read my linked article above, or watch any of Robert Whitaker’s videos (whom white nationalists should not mistake for Bob Whitaker). Ideally, in the case of vaccine hesitancy, Peter would link an open debate between ‘lawyer’ and ‘prosecutor’ so to speak. Only if, from that debate, I feel that the prosecutor won (that is, that the vaccine-hesitant POV sounds more scientific) I would use my time to study the subject.
13 replies on “On vaccine hesitancy”
Vaccines? “It seems to me that poison and Jews seldom do good things.”
Is it possible that something once beneficial to humans has been turned into a weapon against them?
Where’s the link I asked for?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Tonight hopefully, after figuring out non-bare links, I’ll present a few more pertinent thoughts on the issue, and a compendium of useful links and suggested book titles; as well as hopefully a link to something at least resembling an open debate.
I’ll try watching the debate (I’ll post a very important article tonight and still have to finish the proofreading of my translated book).
Right, I’ve compiled a detailed comment complete with links to various video clips and debates, however it exceeds 400 words and I am unable to figure out the non-bare links.
I presume you would make an exemption for the word limit, but otherwise how should I proceed?
You’re assuming that I’m a member of the jury. I am not. As I said above, I’m just a common citizen that would be willing to spend the time listening to an online debate (e.g., YouTube), and only if I feel that you side won that debate I’d be interested in the links you mention.
Right, a bit of a miscommunication there.
At the end of the comment are links to the best candidates I could find for live debates, along with an indication of the length of time for those videos, and I deemed it worthwhile to preface my links to those videos, with supporting links to illustrate my points. Those links could be useful in the future if you did decide to examine the issue in further detail, and they were also for the benefit of other visitors. I avoided trying to present a lengthy primer on the subject of vaccine skepticism in my comment and made it primarily about your request for debate footage.
Either way, I can’t seem to manage proper links either…
Just email me them.
Just a experience to put things a bit in perspective:
I had measles around 1970 (and I am very glad I did). Quite a few at my school had it at the time. I remember my mother just called our doctor, who told her to just put us to bed and keep an eye on the temperature. Only call again if it went a bit too high.
No hassle, no uproar, no problem. It was just one of those things you were to go through. It was even a one chapter in a US TV series at the time named “There is nothing like measles to get a few days off school”.
Today, the same disease raises almost a panic if it arrives in the area amongst those not vaccinated (and even on a few vaccinated as well). Completely irrational, unless you see how somebody can make a few bucks on the fear.
A big part of the vaccine industry stinks from here to hell and back.
Yes, but that is not exactly the subject of this entry. It seems that there are people handicapped with the aftermaths of polio because their parents were hesitant to vaccinate them against the poliovirus.
You’re right – my bad.
But it felt good to get it off mye chest ;-).
As to polio: From the mid 1800s there har been a steady drop i alle infectious diseases. The polite vaccine came in rather late in the decline, and take far too much credit.
I’ll leave it at that and agree to disagree if you like. And I’ll stick to discussing your articles – they’re plenty interesting enough.
Part of the question is.. Are people hesitant about vaccines because they think it’s pseudoscience or because they don’t trust the people making/distributing the vaccines ?