For those who want my answer, I would talk of ‘safety in vaccinations’ (contra safe vaccines), as the vaccine itself is only half of issue; the way we administer it is the other half.

I don’t protest against vaccines. A cup of water seems safe, when it’s not in someone’s lungs. Arsenic seems safe, when it’s inaccessible.

I encourage those who assess safety to consider the scope:
- the systematic culture that promotes rushing assessments of contraindications, to
- the effects of the preservatives on ____, to
- the public fear that increases, even though the stat’s show the human race is better off with vaccinations, to
- the medico-legal system inducing fear in our medical staff, that leads them increasingly to prioritise self-protection in their workplaces (and consequently affecting how they treat patients, and how they administer vaccines, and how readily they inform patients of risks),
- the fact the media & anti-vaxxers are so much better at getting the populace on side than the scientists (who win the argument, but 9/10 people have already switched the channel),
and so on.

When we cover all the bases,
-in practice, we increase the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations,
- in argument, we engage the anti-vaxxers who focus on anecdotes and generalities (and perhaps all society)
- we address the issues honestly (admit there have been some problems) but start drawing the attention where it needs to go: e.g. if we promote safe administration of these things, then the science/numbers/guarantees are applicable: thus, the ball is in the healthcare court.

“A vaccination is safe” seems a little like saying “peanut butter and bee stings are safe”. If ever we argue “vaccination is safe”, yet neglect vaccine-administration issues (such as contraindications), would it be true to say we (too) are not telling the whole truth?

bennymay.wordpress.com/

People who protest against the use of vaccines divide vaccines into “unsafe” and “safe” vaccines. How do they distinguish between the two? If you are saying that there are unsafe vaccines, then you need to define the terms that you are using. If you can’t define the term “unsafe”, then you are lying if you say that vaccine xyz is “unsafe”.

susanrichey, your main argument, it seems to me, is against (the poor argument technique of) playing the man, not the ball. However, you just did that to your opponents; viz. ‘that makes me a better steward of public health than you.’ What’s up with that?

On a side note BennyMay although I think Eiskrystalon is a cool name it is unfortunately not my current moniker (just so no-one gets confused).
When I was speaking about creationists lying for Jesus I was speaking generally. There is a lot of overlap and parallels between antivaccination and religion.

Benny -Thus, creationists err; but I couldn’t say we can argue that most (or all) creationists lie—at least with respect to the present topic.

To err in innocence perhaps is understandable, but this is now 2010 and we still have people telling us about talking snakes and magic apple trees against evidence and facts practically handed to them on a plate.

To hide from the truth is to lie…if only to yourself.

“She has the right to defend herself against someone who called her a liar…”

She sure does. The question is: can she? Has she? Or has her position been demolished by scientific facts?

“…AND who’s intent was to ridicule her position against vaccination.”

And why does he ridicule that position? Perhaps it is because he is a pediatrician who has studied and developed vaccines for much of his career? Because he quite obviously has far more formal education, professional experience, and knowledge of both science and immunology than a self-proclaimed “activist” who proclaimed herself an expert on the topic after her son became ill and she attributed that illness to a vast, worldwide conspiracy of doctors, scientists, and pharmaceutical companies?

“She is a small righteous voice trying to make a difference in the world–she is to be praised.”

Fisher is certainly (self-)righteous but what’s with all of the romantic “trying to make a difference in the world” talk? Why is such an idealistic, heroic narrative necessary? She is not a public health advocate interested in advancing health and well-being for all, she’s a rabid anti-vaccinationist wounded by her personal experience and confusion over the issue. She is far more like an anti-abortion activist on a mission, one who knows that she is right and is impervious to contradicting facts and evidence. It’s unforunate that she seems to have convinced you too that she’s merely advocating for public health when she’s clearly on a political mission and has no qualifications or education to speak of on these issues.

She is a courageous woman who has dedicated her life to trying to make vaccines safer and government officials and pharmaceuticals more accountable.

Please explain how vaccine manufacturers (you know, all three or so of them in the US) and the government officials who regulate them are not accountable to the public. Where is the evidence that they are not held accountable? Assertion without evidence does not translate to fact.

“A growing number of people are concerned with the lack of good safety studies on vaccination. We are concerned with the lack of systematic documentatioon of vaccine injury.”

First you identify the nebulous “growing number of people” who are “concerned with the lack of good safety studies on vaccination”, then you being the next sentence with “We,”. So much for disclosure. And that’s the point: there are plenty of studies on vaccine safety and efficacy. You’ve just never seen them because you have blinders on, because you’ve joined a “movement”, because you weren’t reading those journals anyway and don’t think that evidence matters (at the same time that you’re claiming a paucity of it).

“We believe this “herd immunity” you hold so tightly onto is fiction.”

Then you need to take some (at least) high school level biology classes. This is immunology 101…not very difficult stuff.

“You believe it without question.”

No, that is called dogma. That’s what your faith in what uneducated people like Fisher is: dogma. There is no evidence and there are no arguments that could convince you otherwise because you’ve entered into this debate dishonestly; you are not interested in the safety or efficacy of vaccines, you are interested in promoting the special-interest dogma of your movement. That’s not what science does. If you have evidence that vaccines are harming children in the US, do the research, publish your results in peer-reviewed legitimate journals, and change the minds of all of the doctors and scientists who are convinced otherwise. That’s what scientists do. But you, of course, are not interested in that, you merely claim it to Trojan-Horse your political/conspiracy agenda into the realm of mainstream exposure and respectability.

“We believe the American public-child, adult, and elderly–are all being harmed by vaccinations. Dumbed down. Harmed overall immunity.”

Yes, you believe it on faith. This is the problem. Mountains of evidence says the opposite. How can you win this argument except by revealing that you believe all of this evidence to be a vast worldwide conspiracy? But of course that’s too risky — that might make you look crazy. Some of the others in your “movement” come right out and put their cards on the table but that would jeopardize your coverage on the evening news so better keep quiet about that…right?

“You cannot ignore the increasing disease in this country and we believe vaccinations are a smoking gun.”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is this evidence?

“And yet you resort to ridicule and personal attack in order to make your argument.”

I believe I’ve asked some pretty great questions of you and I’m almost certain you will not address them. I’ve made no ad hominem attacks, though fools do certainly deserve our ridicule and scorn.

“I don’t know why we can’t look at the same evidence and draw the same conclusion–you are prepared to harm more innocent lives on more very flimsy evidence than I am.”

Perhaps because you are mistaken. Is it so hard for you to conceive of that as a possibility? Oh, and by the way, claiming that anybody who disagrees with you on this matter is “prepared to harm more innocent lives…than I am” IS an ad hominem attack…you know, the thing you just condemned your opponents for.

“I think that makes me a better steward of public health than you. And its time to stop the ridicule–and allow us to bring this to a public hearing. If you believe so strongly that vaccination is a public necessity–then I urge you to join us to help PROVE they are safe and effective.”

And what would be the nature of this public hearing? To bring the evidence that vaccines are overwhelmingly beneficial to public health? Do you really think that that’s up for debate? Are you so completely ignorant of the epidemiological data?

“And I submit that you are simply unable to accept the truth of the vaccine-injury because it would INVALIDATE you as a healthcare profession as you absorb the thousands of lives you have harmed over a lifetime holding this faulty belief.”

…and for the closer, out comes the acknowledgment that you are a conspiracy theorist who isn’t interested in public health, or reality, at all. Thanks for wasting all of our time.

Vaccines have a very high safety record. They are extremely closely studied and monitored.

Vaccines improve immunity, they do not harm it.

Herd immunity is an established fact – when vaccine rates drop in communities, infectious diseases come right back. The evidence is overwhelming.

I have written extensively on this issue – always focusing on the scientific evidence. How can you dismiss this as “ridicule” – it seems you are just making that up.

Also – you happily assume that I have some conflict of interest. I am a neurologist – I have never prescribed vaccines in my practice. I have zero invested in vaccines, except that I care about the truth, about science, and about the public health.

If you want to focus on the science, then do it – not anti-vaccine propaganda.