Week 3 – Summarising the debate.

Reading for this blog post has been interesting and scary. I am investigating immunisation, and there is a large and varied body of research studies supporting the efficacy of immunisation. To balance my research on this debate, I looked for negative studies in anticipation of finding reasoned studies presenting the opposing view. Firstly, I scoured the Massey University library - nothing but discussion on parents' fears of immunisation.  Next, the search moved to Google Scholar. Again the search provided no scientific literature.  Because of the necessity of finding information on the 'against' side of the debate on immunisation, I have chosen two websites to show the two prevailing lines of debate from the anti-immunisation group.

First website: http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/

Here Mr Adachi is convinced that vaccines are bad for us. He states: “The dangers of vaccinations to your child's long term health prospects and longevity itself far outweigh any potential benefits touted by the pharmaceutical industry for vaccines” (Adachi, 2013). He then claims that vaccines are being pushed by companies only to make money and these companies use misinformation to say they are safe. He does provide an impressive reference list, marred somewhat in that all link to other articles either written by himself or appearing on his own website. He has failed to provide outside links to any research papers, let alone papers reflecting rigorous research.

I think Mr Adachi has taken this position because immunisation being used by “Big Pharma” fits into his world view. He appears to espouse the belief that the Illuminati are in control and this is the true power behind what we see going on.

Second Website: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/05/12/vaccination-dangers.aspx

This web page has been written by a medical doctor which, for most people, lends more weight to what is being read. This article goes though many listed conditions and their side effects the author believes are related to relevant vaccines (Blaylock, 2004). The title of this article, 'Vaccination dangers can kill you or ruin your life' is, in itself, emotive and over-stated.    

Even though the article is well written, the author draws a long bow in that many conclusions are claimed for which there is no evidence whatsoever provided. Much of the evidence is presented in a way that the average reader could comprehend about half of it, and for the rest just has to take the author's word that it is true.

I do think that the author believes what he is writing. I am sure at the time of writing, 2004, there was not as much information on immunisation safety as is now readily available. It would be helpful if the author had provided some form of references so these could be followed to assess his claims better. 

I think both these websites reflect sincerely held beliefs in what the authors write. However, sincerity does not always make them correct. I am under no illusion that pharmacy companies are above reproach. Even bearing this in mind the amount of data and sheer volume of studies showing the safety of immunisation and the positive effect it has on long term health and the health system seems to conclusive. Many authors I read used fear as the prime factor to convince people against immunisation. People should be presented evidence to make decisions and not be convinced against immunisation by emotive stirring up of fear. After all my searching and reading a voluminous stack of papers and websites I believe immunisation to be a safe and effective way on improving people’s health and stopping preventable illness.

References:

Adachi, B. (2013). Educate yourself. Retrieved from http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/

Blaylock, R. L. (2004). Vaccination dangers can kill you or ruin your life. Retrieved from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/05/12/vaccination-dangers.aspx