Believing "vaccines never work" is a pro-vaccine position (year-end reminder)
On ceding the more important, and only winnable argument.
The following repeats an argument I have made before; older readers may already be familiar with it. However, as two of my recent posts triggered a flood of comments from exactly the kind of “mirror-image pro-vaxxer” mindset discussed below, I am sending out a reminder, to explain just why this type of comment will always prompt such an uncivil and derisive response on my part.
Due to time constraints, this is sent without proofing.
There is a breed of purported anti-vaxxer who in fact shares the most important, central belief of the pro-vaccine fanatic: That if vaccines “work,” ever, then the argument is over; everyone should get vaccines.
How do you know if you are this breed of person — one who imagines they are an anti-vaxxer, but who in fact holds exactly the moral instincts of the pro-vaccine fanatic? You refuse to even consider or accept that maybe some vaccines work.
The believer in anti-vaccine dogma, as opposed to vaccine skepticism, can never accept that any vaccine works. For him or her, after all, if this one glimmer of the pro-vaccine belief is accepted, then the whole apparatus must follow.
What does this breed of person do when confronted with vaccine skepticism?
And so if I say, “let’s look at whether any vaccines besides polio have made any impact on childhood mortality,” the pro-vaccine dogmatist launches into rabid attack. I must certainly be a pro-vaxxer: Because by saying the polio vaccines worked, I am attacking literally the only thing that keeps them from agreeing completely with pro-vaxxers. The dogmatist not only cedes the more important point — that if vaccines work, it is/isn’t the case that everyone must get vaccinated — he does not even consider it up for question. If he considered it up for question, he would not assume that the skeptic who believes one vaccine worked is pro-vaccine. And thus he reveals his fundamental moral agreement with the pro-vaxxer.
In this way, the anti-vaccine dogmatist is pro-vaccine. He is in fact only the mirror image of the pro-vaccine dogmatist.
He attacks the skeptic: me. Now, to be attacked from “my own camp” would be one thing. But that isn’t what is even happening here. All I see, from my inbox, is a misinformed pro-vaxxer who doesn’t understand me or himself one bit. And this is what is enraging; to have someone who can’t even realize that they have embraced the most important moral premise of the pro-vaxxer imagine that I am the one who is for vaccines (besides the OPV).
Hence my aggressive responses to these same comments on two recent posts.
While it would behoove a welcoming comment-page environment to treat all visitors cordially, it is impossible to perform this task when I am dealing with this breed. The anti-vaccine dogmatist doesn’t understand what he is; that he is merely a mirror image of the pro-vaccine dogmatist. He doesn’t understand that it is not me he is attacking when he makes war against the evidence for some vaccines working, it is himself. Why should I do anything in response except insult this lost and pathetic person, until (praise God) he takes his confusion to some other doorstep?
Covid vaccine severe efficacy (for the 1000x time)
It bears mentioning that this is exactly the same problem that occurred in this Covid-vaccine-critical space. Rather than stake a position in which it does not matter whether the Covid vaccines worked (and reducing severe disease at least is an effect to which an individual and social value can be attached, and thus counts as “working”), Covid vaccine critics by and large ceded this part of the battlefield at the first opportunity.
For my part, I have argued since July, 2021 that severe efficacy is real (in older adults); that there is no good evidence for “negative efficacy;” I have responded to every popular theory for how severe efficacy is magically an illusion created by statistical trickery (pretend that each one of those words links to a previous post), to provide the reader a more accurate view. Of course, this made no difference to what “our” side decided to believe; anyone who did come to the same conclusion as me has since dropped out of this ecosystem, unwilling to pursue further criticism of the Covid vaccines.
I have also reported on IgG4 tolerance and potential problems which will come down the line from this fiasco; but as of now, is the world falling around on anyone’s head? Look around you. Things are fine where I am in California, at all events.
But think — why did I try to make readers aware of these facts (severe efficacy is real, etc.)?
To make it clear that “our” side was failing to see where the important battle really was. By clinging to a fantasy that severe efficacy wasn’t real, even though it was already evident and obvious during the Delta wave, Covid vaccine skeptics let the pro-vaccine side completely dominate this part of the argument — because they were the only ones even talking about it!
Pro-Covid-vaccine rhetoric:
The Covid vaccines reduce severe disease, therefore everyone has to take them.
(Actual) anti-Covid-vaccine rhetoric
No, that’s not a valid conclusion. This is an experimental product; etc.
(Pseudo) anti-Covid-vaccinen rhetoric
But the Covid vaccines don’t reduce severe disease!
And so the debate breaks down, because one side (“our” side) has ceased to confront the other on the most important point, and instead is spouting delusion.
How could anyone think this is a better approach to winning the argument than agreeing with “what is true about the vaccines,” but disagreeing with the conclusion that follows it?
How can an objective disagreement — both sides in fact knowing that only one of them is right, and so there is no point discussing anything further — be more effective than a subjective one — yes, you have your opinion, but I disagree?
(Hint: It can’t.)
The anti-vaccine dogmatist thus fails to attack the pro-vaccine dogma where it is weakest: In the sociological, political, and ethical realm. The whole reason “all vaccines save lives” is part of the pro-vaccine dogma is to avoid this fight.
And so the dogma that “no vaccines save lives,” what does it do? It gives the pro-vaccine dogma exactly what it wants: A lack of fight over the issues that matter.
So what does an actual anti-vaccine position look like?
Vaccines are just immune exposures. They generate a cellular and humoral immune response to selected pathogens. Whether they do more harm than good, the idea that they can’t possibly “work” — can’t even reduce severe outcomes from an infectious disease — well, this is a fantasy. Antibodies exist for a reason; they are primarily good things, not some Trojan Horse always waiting for a special, secret reason to sabotage future infection responses; an “original sin” punishing humans for tasting knowledge.
The only question, given that immunity is extremely complex, is what actually prevails. Can artificial antibodies more frequently target self-epitopes, leading to auto-immune diseases of all sorts? They might. But if regular immunity protects from future infections, then so too might artificial immunity. Obviously. This isn’t the end of the question on whether everyone should take them. It is only the beginning (it establishes gross benefit, but doesn’t even get to “net” individual benefit).
Imagine how the pro-vaccine dogma would have to respond to an informed opposition force, who agreed on the material fact that some vaccines (e.g. at least the polio vaccines, perhaps others with trivial relevance to childhood mortality) work but disagreed that this means everyone should take them? This would be a true debate.
If you derived value from this post, please drop a few coins in your fact-barista’s tip jar.
gg
I think the medical establishment are smart enough to know that if they don't produce at least some medicines and procedures..including vaccines..that apparently work, the rest of the world would soon cop on to the fact that they're generally a bunch of psychopathic eugenisists bent on population control of the most extreme order. That is just my opinion though. When it comes to vaccines, I've had my share over the years. In 2019, a tetanus booster due to a wild animal bite gave me microclots which led to a ministroke which took the sight, permanently, in my right eye.
My now adult daughter had the MMR in her teens. She took an immediate reaction to it which our GP dismissed as "normal and it'll settle down, take two aspirin" after which within a week she went from being a bright, sunny, loving individual to an extremely autistic stranger and I have had zero admittance to the fact the vaccine caused that, nor any medical help to deal with the aftermath of it.
I have no doubt that yes, some vaccines will give the expected effect. However, I go on my own experiences and that of others close to me and further afield and although I cannot begin to get into any medical based discussion on their MO, I'd be foolish to disregard experience imo.
Ultimately I believe in one basic thing in regard to any medical procedure. Or two if you separate the parts...informed consent and the freedom of personal choice.
And that has been in part removed from us as a species and, given the current machinations of the WHO, will be removed completely from us soon.
Tangentially, it is a moral imperative that even if some medical product is 100% effective and completely safe, we have the right to refuse to take it.
Because what happens in a lab theoretically or a small study doesn't always match real-world roll-out. Because each of us are unique - for example some may have specific intolerances (that the medical community is largely ignorant and dismissive towards) that may apply to other ingredients in a theoretical product. Because of religious beliefs. Or, simply, because one believes one doesn't need the product.
I know a lot of focus has been on how unsafe or ineffective the recent products brought to market have been. Bigger picture, though: mandates to consume or inject any medical product are ALWAYS ethically wrong.