Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

Pro-life and “anti-vax”

Public health policy aims to protect society from disease - sometimes, at an individual's expense. One person in 2.4 million inoculated with the polio vaccine gets the disease. Before the vaccines were introduced in the US in the 1950s, however, the virus afflicted tens of thousands each year, so the public wins, despite that minuscule individual risk. Growing numbers of malcontents, the "anti-vax" campaigners, allied increasingly with the Tea Party movement in the US, detest their government's directives on vaccination.

The effect can be seen in the fallout from the scare over the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) single jab. Where 95 per cent of the population is vaccinated, the probability of the measles virus finding a body in which to propagate diminishes; and so measles eventually disappears. When the MMR jab was (falsely) linked to autism, however, UK vaccination rates dropped and so measles is on the rise. Non-immunised people keep the germs in circulation.

It's not just anti-vax individuals at risk. Newborns, for instance, aren't immunologically ready to take the vaccine - they rely on not coming into contact with the disease. Tea Party activists, therefore, face a dilemma. Can one pursue a pro-life crusade for the unborn while also defending the right of the unvaccinated to endanger babies?

6 comments

paul5of6's picture

==Point 1==
"Public health policy aims to protect society from disease - sometimes, at an individual's expense."

Medical procedures should never be forced on an individual for the benefit of another.

==Point 2==
"When the MMR jab was (falsely) linked to autism, however, UK vaccination rates dropped and so measles is on the rise."

In the US, the vaccination rates for pertussis are higher than ever, and yet some diseases (like pertussis) have been making a comeback. So coincidence does not equal causation.

==Point 3==
"Can one pursue a pro-life crusade for the unborn while also defending the right of the unvaccinated to endanger babies?"

Your question is based on an invalid assumption (that not vaccinating endangers newborns) and bias (pro-life "crusade").

Spectator's picture

You rail against "Big Pharma" yet fail to see the worst example of their practices. "One person in 2.4 million" you say reacts to polio vaccine. Who's figures do you quote? "The MMR jab was (falsely) linked to autism" you say but on who's authority?
The answer to both is The Medico-Industrial Complex, who's influence and profits you directly help to sustain without seeming to seek the reality behind the situation.
I am a lifelong humanist socialist, not a "Tea-Party Neo-Con. Further I am a scientist (including immunology research) and a parent and have investigated this topic deeply over twenty years. Vaccinations do not damage one in 2.4 million but have a negative or non-beneficial effect on most recipients bringing on immediate death, soon after death (cot death), and a range of conditions from allergies and asthma through autism to SSPE and a range of lifelong chronic conditions.
You beat infection with good, innate biology. The immune system has functioned well for countless millions of years. Optimise nutrition, provide a healthy environment and, at crucial junctures, good nursing assistance and natural immunity is developed and maintained for life. There's no need for jabs.

Spectator's picture

But even "New Statesman" is supported by funding from Big Pharma and the Medico-Industrial Complex. Supplements here, advertisements there, every penny counts even if it distorts the reality that you say you want to portray so clearly.

Spectator's picture

And finally the rights of unvaccinated new-borns. Wow, how did we get this far without perishing in our first few weeks? Answer: Because innate immunity plus breast feeding provides all a young infant needs. In fact, generation on generation we are weakening this transfer of protection and eventually vaccination will eliminate it. "Herd Immunity is another fiction developed by the MIC. Naturally the mother-child contact plus day to day exchanges are all that is required to retain maximal population reactivity to any new infections.
Start thinking as a scientist who investigates subjects and thinks them through. Honest, it'll do you good!

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets