VACCINES: THE CAUSE OR SOLUTION TO DISEASES?
Wakefield was a doctor himself who challenged the reliability of vaccines; even though his study was disproved, he is certainly not the only medical professional who holds a strong stance against immunization. Richard Moskowitz, who received his B.A. from Harvard University and his M.D. from New York University, has written numerous articles on the harms of immunization, such as Hidden in Plain Sight: the Role of Vaccines in Chronic Disease and The Case Against Immunizations (Moskowitz). If someone with such a reputable education is opposed to vaccines, there must be some validity to his claim right? Maybe, but if we just assume everything a well-respected person says is true just because he is smart, he could say anything and his audience would be convinced; as humans, we have to learn to think critically and independently. However, if we know that not everything we hear is true, once again, we come back to the question: how do we decide what is? Parents face the same dilemma when they form their opinion of vaccines, which demonstrates how complex the vaccine debate has become. Many are conflicted because a diversity of opinions exists in the medical field. Leslie Wygant Arndt, a mother of a 10-month-old child, is one parent among many who do not know what to think: “I have looked at the people who are against it, and I find myself taking their side. But then I go back and forth on this every day. It's an emotional topic” (Steinhauer, 2009). With so much information thrown at us from friends, family, parents, celebrities, and professionals, all of whom have tremendous power over our thoughts, we have to assign levels of significance.
Many people prioritize doctors’ words, as they should and do since doctors are usually the most knowledgeable medically, so when one or a few doctors, such as Wakefield and Moskowitz, make a claim that a medicine has a tremendous health effect and provide evidence that seems dependable, people are generally likely to believe them. This tendency can be applied to both people who oppose and support vaccines, which explains the existence of such polar attitudes.
Anti-vaccinator numbers remain strong, prompting more research focused on disproving the claims to bring vaccination rates back up. A simple search on Google reveals many more sites and articles are dedicated to discrediting the anti-vaccine movement than to supporting it, implying the claim that vaccines are harmful is no longer as well supported anymore. The consensus among those who support the administration of vaccines is that the risk of not being vaccinated far outweighs the risks associated with vaccination. Denying immunization reduces the overall effectiveness of vaccines and ultimately harms public health. So should the movement be stopped?
Even though the movement may be causing a rise in vaccine-preventable illnesses, those backing it are not intentionally attempting to harm people. Anti-vaccinators are just trying to provide information that may be relevant or of interest to the public so that parents can make an informed decision. Perhaps those against vaccines should not be so harshly criticized because parents have the best intentions in informing others what they believe is true. Like all controversial issues, there is no way to eradicate all dissent as people have the right to choose what they believe and say. The anti-vaccine movement has already been present for many centuries, coming and going in spurts depending the new information that surfaces. The best that we can do now is to educate the people on both the pros and the cons of vaccines (as many doctors do when they recommend a vaccine) and to help them understand the risks are minimal (especially if all parents vaccinate their children) and the “links” to developmental disorders are merely coincidental to the timing of immunization. The span of the movement, geographically and in time, suggests that questioning science is significant, as it encourages research that confirms and repudiates claims to arrive at the most absolute truth possible and that saves lives.
Many people prioritize doctors’ words, as they should and do since doctors are usually the most knowledgeable medically, so when one or a few doctors, such as Wakefield and Moskowitz, make a claim that a medicine has a tremendous health effect and provide evidence that seems dependable, people are generally likely to believe them. This tendency can be applied to both people who oppose and support vaccines, which explains the existence of such polar attitudes.
Anti-vaccinator numbers remain strong, prompting more research focused on disproving the claims to bring vaccination rates back up. A simple search on Google reveals many more sites and articles are dedicated to discrediting the anti-vaccine movement than to supporting it, implying the claim that vaccines are harmful is no longer as well supported anymore. The consensus among those who support the administration of vaccines is that the risk of not being vaccinated far outweighs the risks associated with vaccination. Denying immunization reduces the overall effectiveness of vaccines and ultimately harms public health. So should the movement be stopped?
Even though the movement may be causing a rise in vaccine-preventable illnesses, those backing it are not intentionally attempting to harm people. Anti-vaccinators are just trying to provide information that may be relevant or of interest to the public so that parents can make an informed decision. Perhaps those against vaccines should not be so harshly criticized because parents have the best intentions in informing others what they believe is true. Like all controversial issues, there is no way to eradicate all dissent as people have the right to choose what they believe and say. The anti-vaccine movement has already been present for many centuries, coming and going in spurts depending the new information that surfaces. The best that we can do now is to educate the people on both the pros and the cons of vaccines (as many doctors do when they recommend a vaccine) and to help them understand the risks are minimal (especially if all parents vaccinate their children) and the “links” to developmental disorders are merely coincidental to the timing of immunization. The span of the movement, geographically and in time, suggests that questioning science is significant, as it encourages research that confirms and repudiates claims to arrive at the most absolute truth possible and that saves lives.