Where do you stand on vaccinations?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

I just don’t find it prudent to accept the “best current belief” about much of anything outside of scripture.

That’s my question. If following best current belief or majority expert consensus is not prudent, what IS prudent, following the advice of less informed people who are not accountable to their peers for professional standards of research?

You suggest in your final sentence continuing to research, but you don’t establish any boundary after which the dissenting minority voices can outweigh the majority ones.

When it becomes the majority expert consensus. It’s like democracy. Democracy isn’t perfect. It doesn’t get all the answers right. But part of living in a democracy is abiding by its decisions (in all but the most extreme cases), because being overruled sometimes is the price of having a say. Also, democracy is preferred by many people because it offers the hope of change 1) from within and 2) by persuasion rather than force.

I’m just thinking that in the face of potential death or permanent disability, this is an instance where prudence could lead away from the “experts.”

Here it seems like you’ve skewed the stakes unfairly. That is, the risk is on BOTH sides, not just one. If you DON’T follow the expert advice, there also could be fatal consequences for one or multiple people. In such a situation, I personally would have to be overwhelmingly confident in my grasp of the situation to come to act contrary to the expert consensus. I might probe, ask questions, play devil’s advocate, get a second opinion, but in the end I’m going to accede to the most qualified opinion.

However, apply that post to evolution instead of vaccines. Decades of majority acceptance and purported avalanches of evidence.

This is a special case, because most Christians who reject evolution do not do so primarily on scientific grounds. Rather, they trust an expert consensus provided to them by their religious leaders regarding how the Bible functions and should be read, and they think that this religious consensus is weightier than the scientific consensus. BTW, I do believe in evolution, so your example falls a bit flat for me.

[Charlie] BTW, I do believe in evolution, so your example falls a bit flat for me.

Yeah, I guess it would.

[Charlie] In such a situation, I personally would have to be overwhelmingly confident in my grasp of the situation to come to act contrary to the expert consensus. I might probe, ask questions, play devil’s advocate, get a second opinion, but in the end I’m going to accede to the most qualified opinion.

I come to the vaccine question with a lot of doubt towards these experts. Other people come to the vaccine question with a higher level of trust toward these experts. This makes a huge difference in decision making. Most people don’t see the popular medical system as quackery, but I kind of do. In some realms it’s very helpful. In other realms it’s just very weird. I try to be very selective about this.

So personally, some bits of history I’ve noticed over the years of the medical profession do give me pause in accepting their consensus. And this is not a slight on individual doctors, who are very nice in their own right, nor ignoring the amazing strides that have happened.

Like, the refusal/mocking of hand washing as necessary to do (1800s). The widescale use us DES on pg women, later stopped b/c of birth defects. The off-label use of an ulcer medication to stimulate labor that’s associated with uterine rupture and other serious complications. Use of antibiotics for GBS+ moms in labor—done as law across the board today, but if you go to their conferences and listen to their experts, you realize it’s experimental. The list goes on and on.

So this plays a huge factor in how people come to the question of vaccines, too. I come as a huge skeptic towards this profession or science in general. It colors how I read everything. Other people, like my sister the almost-MD, have a very different approach. Amazing how we can live together ;)

Anne,

I want to be very careful to distinguish between skepticism of a particular medical practice and skepticism of the medical establishment itself. Here is a statement that sums up my position: The medical profession, because of its acceptance of the scientific method and its high professional standards, has greatly improved the quality of life of many people and continues to make progress in that regard. Despite failures, it does much more good than harm.

Now, let’s look at your claim that the popular medical system is quackery. By “popular medical system” I think you just mean the consensus of physicians. What is quackery? It’s a slippery word, and I don’t think we’re going to solve it by looking it up in the dictionary. But I submit that quackery is a practice that is not based on empirical reasoning and not accountable to empirical refutation. Thus, contemporary medical practice is not quackery.

So, let’s look at hand washing. In about 1840 or so, so far as I know, nobody was routinely washing their hands: not surgeons, not general practitioners, not midwives, not herbalists, not homeopaths, not faith healers. No one knew they needed to. (If you have different info, please let me know.) Now, in the 1840s comes Semmelweis, who washes his hand and does a few studies, but doesn’t publish them immediately and doesn’t have any theoretical explanation for his claims. (See this article.) In the 1860s germ theory gets advocated by Pasteur and others, and Lister develops some sterilization procedures for surgery. These new ideas and practices get published in medical journals and talked about at medical conferences. Word spreads and doctors begin to accept the practice. So what is this? It looks to me like the medical establishment recognized a problem, came up with a solution, tested it, and implemented it. How does that contribute to skepticism of the medical establishment?

Likewise for some of the other things you listed. I admit I’m not as informed on the specifics as you are for some of these things. But it appears to me that the medical community is fairly good at self-correcting. When things go wrong, it’s doctors who point it out, doctors who come up with solutions, and doctors who campaign for them. When was the last time an herbalist or homeopath solved a major problem in modern medicine? When was the last time an herb or arcane practice consistently cured a disease?

That’s all I’m saying. Expert consensus isn’t always right, but I don’t see anything better. I think it makes more sense to work inside the system than to opt out.

Anne, I missed your earlier statement about experts as consultants. I think that’s fine on an individual or family level, but when it comes to public policy and when the stakes are high … I think they get more clout than that.

I’m not going to quibble about the definition of quackery. But I am not as charitable about the whole history and present day state of things as you are. I could go on and on with examples, just from obstetrics. Many, many people have to die or be maimed before the medical profession will question/change its theories. And those who question them before they are ready to do so themselves are the quacks. :D So be it.

The tension, IMO, comes from attitudes and perspectives of the professional/expert class vs. the Regular Joe class. This tension is evident in many areas, but let’s stick with the medical profession.

Some experts often have a “Shut and do what I say, I’m a professional” attitude, and neglect to recognize that the Regular Joe can have some pertinent insight, being as how they live with themselves and their children every day. People may not always be able to verbalize their instincts and perceptions because of a lack of medical training, but that doesn’t make them stupid when it comes to their own health care.

It also follows that when a doctor or hospital messes up, there is a tendency to circle the wagons and minimize their liability. This goes even farther to cause an adversarial attitude, and unfortunately, one bad doctor can reflect poorly on the whole profession.

Regular Joes don’t appreciate it when they are treated dismissively or with disdain because they don’t have a medical degree, and it is just as important for a doctor to have a decent bedside manner as it is for them to have talent and expertise in their field. That means most Regular Joes would touch ‘Dr. House’ with a 10-foot pole.

The other side of the coin is that Regular Joes sometimes don’t do their homework, and they’d trust Aunt Sally’s mustard plaster and Uncle Fred’s gunpowder milkshake before they will read a book or consult with a doctor about their condition. They trust their friend’s anecdotes over someone who has studied and trained for years. That isn’t sensible either.

Sometimes a Regular Joe doesn’t like that dependence on another person - basically a stranger - for their health and well-being. They have to disrobe and share deeply personal details with someone they’ve never met before or only see once or twice a year. This kind of trust should not be assumed and taken for granted. It should be considered a privilege.

Anyway, we need to deal with this tension when it comes to national health care issues, and neither ‘side’ should be tossing around babies and bathwater.

The move toward natural remedies is beneficial- most advocate for things like eating a balanced diet rich in fruits and vegetables, drinking lots of water, reducing stress, getting more exercise, recognizing how you react to certain foods or changes in your environment. Plain ol’ good sense.

But it’s completely wrong to think that herbs and supplements are harmless just because they are ‘natural’ or ‘organic’. Many herbs have side effects, especially when taken in large doses, and when folks are under the impression that ‘natural’ means ‘harmless’, they may double the dosage with an herbal supplement - something they’d never do with a prescription drug. Most people don’t realize that grapefruit juice can either block or increase the potency of certain substances, natural, prescription and over-the-counter. Excessive use of apple cider vinegar can deplete the body of potassium, especially in diabetics. ‘Natural’ does not by default mean ‘healthy’. There are very few studies available to verify the claims that many herbalists make.

We may not trust the studies done by those in gov’t or the medical profession because of Big Money Pharma, but sometimes naturalists ain’t got any. And they get paid too, by the way, because people buy their stuff by the truckloads. You can ‘follow the money’ either way.

Even with a healthy lifestyle, there are diseases that can’t be addressed directly by herbs and supplements, and that is where most immunizations against communicable diseases come into play. The evidence supports the fact that they are relatively safe (in that side effects are rare) and are effective in eradicating the worst of many communicable diseases.

[Anne Sokol]

I’m not going to quibble about the definition of quackery. But I am not as charitable about the whole history and present day state of things as you are. I could go on and on with examples, just from obstetrics. Many, many people have to die or be maimed before the medical profession will question/change its theories. And those who question them before they are ready to do so themselves are the quacks. :D So be it.

I guess it really comes down to who are the most credible quacks then. I am not saying the medical profession is perfect. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that they are going to be right far more often than the alternative health crowd. The process determines the result and the process is infinitely better in conventional medicine rather than alternative medicine.

The process in alternative medicine is so incredibly bad that I have often questioned myself as to whether I belonged in that industry at all. Take for example Christian’s assertion from above that garlic is the most anti-viral thing on earth. I don’t know who he heard that from but upstream from him, that originated with marketing materials of a company that sells garlic. It is a huge moral issue to position garlic that way because it could lead people away from responsible health decisions and should not be taken lightly. A company that made a statement like that should have a rigorous process in place to substantiate it. Yet in the industry, a company needs nothing; not even one clinical study.

In general, it is not the products and therapies of the alternative health industry that are the problem. The marketing behind them is the problem. It is flat out dishonest in many many cases. People read that marketing (often in the form of books) and believe it, never understanding that they are reading propaganda instead of facts. You don’t have to trace very far back from the books to find the products being sold.

An interesting article about the risks of taking prescription drugs.

From Consumer Reports:

http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/health-safety/comm…

[Ed Vasicek]

[Ben Howard]

Ed, the problem with the poll is that there really isn’t an answer for the person who says they will get whatever vaccines are the currently medically recommended vaccines or just a simple, I am for giving my kids vaccines. See what I mean with my responses below.

I am generally against them and did not/would not vaccinate my chlldren. - obviously doesn’t work
I am for the most essential ones (not measles or chicken pox, for example) - still doesn’t work if you are for vaccines

I am for the ones required for public schools but do not hold others to that standard - most states only require a bare minimum compared to those encouraged
I am for them as a rule, and believe failing to vaccinate our children gives Christians a bad name - best fits my view, except I don’t think it necessarily gives a Christian a bad name to disagree with my view; there are unsaved people who disagree with vaccinations

I am against some or all of them but have my children vaccinated to be a team player. - obviously doesn’t fit
I have changed my mind one way or another on the issue (explain)- also no
I am only for older children or adult vaccinations - and no

Ben, your answer is complex for sure. IMO, “I am generally against them and did not/would not vaccinate my children” best summarizes your viewpoint. You “would not” if there were a practical choice. It sounds like you would not even have your children vaccinated for the essential ones. If you, without constraint, would have vaccinated your children for the essential ones, then that choice would have been the best answer. Also, one can be for vaccinations (my choice), and one can say Christians get a bad name for refusing (the choice others make is not neutral). Those are two different things.

Anyhow, we survived the poll!

Ed, sorry, I must have made myself really unclear. I am 100% for giving my son ALL his vaccinations, and in my opinion none of the poll answers fit that answer - Again, I am completely and totally for vaccinating and I think that those who don’t are endangering other people around them.

Interesting discussion here as usual.

Many of you should take to heart what GregH states, because he was very deep in this industry.

With that said, it surprises me how many people on this thread say that they read both sides of the argument, yet they are not comparing apples to apples. Anyone can write a book, publish it on Amazon, open a web page, write an article, even become a Doctor. Yet it surprises me to see people compare that on the same standing as individuals who publish in peer reviewed leading journals, or large government and international health organizations. Or compare something written on a website for marketing reasons, to a full blown clinical trial. Or comparing a totally unregulated industry to an industry that is considered the most regulated industry in the world. I am not saying don’t take a health supplement or eat healthy, nor am I saying to take every vaccine in the book. But to say the health industry is better and safer than the pharmaceutical industry or to write off vaccines because of what someone wrote is plain naive and wreckless in my opinion.

[christian cerna]

An interesting article about the risks of taking prescription drugs.

From Consumer Reports:

http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/health-safety/comm…

An article from 7.5 years ago?

Here is an interesting article about the risks of taking Health Supplements from the same magazine that you quoted above, but it is about a year old

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/dangerous-supplements/index…

The difference with your article and the one that I posted is that safety issues around some drugs that are very complex and are used to cure complex diseases, when taken in a broader context have presented safety issues that are not always caught by the organization responsible for enforcement. The article I posted says that there is no oversight on the quality, and manufacturers are doing things like putting in 200x the amount of selenium on the container which essentially was poisoining people. A problem that is symptomatic with the industry because there is no oversight. Two very different issues.

So, because the article is from 7 years ago, it’s not true? I didn’t know that 7 years ago people were living in the dark ages of medicine. I feel sorry for anyone who ever visited a doctor 7 years ago.

When was the last time you ever heard of someone dying or experiencing serious health issues when taking supplements as directed?

Yet, I have heard of many cases of people dying or experiencing health complications after taking prescription drugs.

[christian cerna]

When was the last time you ever heard of someone dying or experiencing serious health issues when taking supplements as directed?

It happens quite often I’m afraid. There are two ways it happens. There have been the recalls of course because of death such as the ephedra situation a few years back. And it happens because people choose to do wacko alternative therapy rather than conventional therapy when they have a serious health crisis. I have for example watched a lot of people choose to drink exotic fruit juice supplements rather than do chemotherapy. They make a either/or choice because of conflict between the two therapies and it almost always ends badly.

[christian cerna]

So, because the article is from 7 years ago, it’s not true? I didn’t know that 7 years ago people were living in the dark ages of medicine. I feel sorry for anyone who ever visited a doctor 7 years ago.

When was the last time you ever heard of someone dying or experiencing serious health issues when taking supplements as directed?

Yet, I have heard of many cases of people dying or experiencing health complications after taking prescription drugs.

Uhhh yes. After this article was written, the concerns that were expressed in this article, both the signing into law of the PDUFA bill as well as the implementation of RiskMAPS were introduced. Both further enhancing the oversight on drug safety.

Numerous deaths have been recorded around weight loss pills, St. John’s Wort, iron pills…..and the lists go on. Most were fairly healthy prior to taking the pills.

I’m curious- perhaps Greg can answer this: What makes natural supplements natural and prescription drugs unnatural? Are the prescription drugs zapped with something? I understand that prescription drugs are more complex combinations of things from the periodic table of elements (naturally occurring substances), but if we start to randomly combine a whole bunch of supplements couldn’t we end up with something quite complex as well? Further if supplement combinations are untested, couldn’t that be dangerous- especially when numerous supplements are taken at the same time? Let us not forget that hemp is quite natural, but I do not want to take any dried hemp leaf supplements. (BTW, I’m not against all supplements either- my mom takes some that lower her cholesterol and she has been able to get off her traditional medication- I think she is taking fish oil, red yeast rice, chlorella, and coQ 10, and anther packaged supplement).

[JD Miller]

I’m curious- perhaps Greg can answer this: What makes natural supplements natural and prescription drugs unnatural? Are the prescription drugs zapped with something? I understand that prescription drugs are more complex combinations of things from the periodic table of elements (naturally occurring substances), but if we start to randomly combine a whole bunch of supplements couldn’t we end up with something quite complex as well? Further if supplement combinations are untested, couldn’t that be dangerous- especially when numerous supplements are taken at the same time? Let us not forget that hemp is quite natural, but I do not want to take any dried hemp leaf supplements. (BTW, I’m not against all supplements either- my mom takes some that lower her cholesterol and she has been able to get off her traditional medication- I think she is taking fish oil, red yeast rice, chlorella, and coQ 10, and anther packaged supplement).

It is not like the ingredients are all that different; drugs can be made from the same sources in some cases. They can be close cousins in some situations like the red yeast rice/statin drug example. In fact, many supplements could in theory become drugs if they went through the rigorous process to get classified that way.

It is about classification. Drugs have to go through rigorous testing and have to be made with much more standardized processes but once they are classified as drugs, they can be marketed as cures for specific health conditions. Supplements are not under that strict regulation but they cannot be marketed in most cases as treatments/cures for health conditions.

And sure, there are dangers to overdosing on supplements and having interactions with supplements.

[JD Miller]

I’m curious- perhaps Greg can answer this: What makes natural supplements natural and prescription drugs unnatural? Are the prescription drugs zapped with something? I understand that prescription drugs are more complex combinations of things from the periodic table of elements (naturally occurring substances), but if we start to randomly combine a whole bunch of supplements couldn’t we end up with something quite complex as well? Further if supplement combinations are untested, couldn’t that be dangerous- especially when numerous supplements are taken at the same time? Let us not forget that hemp is quite natural, but I do not want to take any dried hemp leaf supplements. (BTW, I’m not against all supplements either- my mom takes some that lower her cholesterol and she has been able to get off her traditional medication- I think she is taking fish oil, red yeast rice, chlorella, and coQ 10, and anther packaged supplement).

Technically the only difference between a Drug and a Health Supplement comes down to marketing, or what their intended use is for. If a substance is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or a substance (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals it is a drug. Everything else is a Health Substance. So if the substance is marketed to cure or treat a disease, according to the FDA it needs to fall under the definition of a drug and be regulated by the FDA. This is why Health Supplements cannot make claims to cure or treat anything. Once they do that they become a drug. There are vitamins that are manufactured by Drug companies and they become a drug. There are products that are from drug companies that are natural, and there are Health Supplements that aren’t really natural. The name you see on the bottle means nothing.

Since no one person can completely research the costs and benefits of vaccinations, it remains to us to judiciously appeal to authority. I judge which authority by looking at history, friends who have studied medicine, government, and personal observation. All these things scream at me to get most of the vaccinations that my (trusted) doctor recommends for me.

I also observe that those of my friends who refuse vaccinations tend to distrust history, doctors, and government (nearly all that I know are 9/11 truthers). I also observe (small sample, I know) that those same friends tend to have more medical challenges than I have.

So yesterday, I took my son to his pediatrician. I know this doctor cares for my son. We attend church together, and this doctor volunteers his time and money to go on third-world medical missions every year. He is a good man, not a money-grubbing big pharma guy. We discussed the three vaccination shots to be given. Initially, we were only going to accept one, the TDAP. The doctor agreed with me that the HPV was unnecessary in our case, but he urged us to get the meningococcus as well. We followed his recommendations.

So no, it is not perfect. Doctors, governments, and pharmaceutical companies are made up of imperfect sinners. But so are herbalists, naturalists, and snake-oil salesmen. It is just that the first group tends to lean on science and history a bit more than the other.

http://thepeopleschemist.com/reasons-dont-vaccinate-children-vaccine-su…