Vaccine Camps
The Camps
Vaccine Sceptics
- Prophets: Andrew Wakefield (but there are many others)
- Holy Texts/Sites: Wakefield's Books, Whale.com (but there are many others)
Medical Establishment
- Prophets: Paul Offit (but there are many others)
- Holy Texts/Sites: Offit's Books, CDC, UK Green Book (but there are many others)
So Which Camp Are You In, Then?
I'm a fully paid-up member of the Medical Establishment camp, with a keen interest in comparative religion.
How Each Camp Views Itself And The Other Camp
Not all of the "Other Camp" views are true at once, but enough of them are true frequently enough to make effective communication between the camps almost impossible.
The main problem is that each camp very easily falls into a state where they cannot understand how the other camp can be acting in good faith. Accusations and a general breakdown in communication swiftly follow.
| Itself | The Other Camp | What A Martin Might Say About Both Camps |
|---|---|---|
| Not A "Camp" At All | Definitely A Camp | Somewhere In Between |
| Trying To Prevent Needless Suffering And Death | Responsible For Needless Suffering And Death | Trying To Prevent Needless Suffering And Death |
| Open-Minded | Closed-Minded | Find It Very Hard To Understand The Other Camp's Viewpoint |
| Generally Calm and Rational | Often Aggressive, Sneery and Defensive | All These Things And More |
| Caring | Selfish | Caring |
| Arguing In Good Faith | Relying On Dishonest / Misleading Rhetoric | Doing Their Best To State Their View Of The Truth |
| Trying To Get At The Real Issues | Avoiding The Real Issues | Trying To Get At The Real Issues As They See Them |
Areas Where Rational Discussion Is Sometimes Possible
These are relatively few and narrow. Discussion is, at least sometimes, possible around:
- Very specific assertions in very specific papers
- The extent and nature of immunity waning
- Herd terminology: continuum between weak protection and true immunity
- Vaccine selection pressures and their implications
- Suppression of immune responses (eg pertussis vaccine vs peripertussis)
- Tensions between personal autonomy/choice and cost/efficiency/coverage concerns of govt vaccine policy
Areas Where Agreement Is Unlikely
These are many and often very broad. Examples are:
- Whether the prophets (Offit, Wakefield) are of good moral character, and in particular:
- Whether Offit has knowingly caused the death of children for monetary gain
- Whether Wakefield has knowingly caused the death of children for monetary gain
- Whether the vaccine industry is corrupt
- The risks of vaccines in general
- The benefits of vaccines in general
How Do I Decide Who Is Right?
No Single Person Will Present The Arguments In A Way Both Sides Accept
Don't hold out hope that you will find someone who can help you bridge the gap between the camps - that is, someone who will give you a characterisation of both camp's views in a manner that each camp would be happy with. I have never seen anyone even coming close on this. My own personal opinion is that this is not actually possible.
Note that I have avoided attempting to set out the principles behind the position of either camp here, for that very reason. I am in the Medical Establishment Camp and - after a few attempts to do so even for minor points - now realise that I personally am not up to the task of setting out the views and justifications behind Vaccine Scepticism in a manner that they would feel was fair and/or accurate.
If someone asserts that they can give you a view of the beliefs and motives of the "other side" that the "other side" would accept, take that assertion with a lorry-load pinch of salt.
Internet Discussions Will Not Help You Decide
Internet discussions are no good either - thread-based discussion between the two camps tends to break down very quickly into abuse. The viewpoints are so different, with such high stakes, that effective discussion is rarely possible for long without accusations of arguing in bad faith causing a collapse of the thread (often the bad faith accusations are the reason for the thread's creation in the first place).
This effect is self-reinforcing over time, as people learn not to discuss vaccines on internet threads unless they are happy with a high level of conflict. Everyone shoots from the hip and people actively avoid making anything that might be viewed as a concession to the other side.
Do you want to be this person?
A Book From Each Side May Help You Decide
The best suggestion I can think of is to read something from both camps and see who seems more plausible. The following books are recommended by each camp (separately of course):
- Wakefield: "Callous Disregard"
- Offit: "Deadly Choices"
If, by contrast, you are looking for information to confirm your existing view of vaccines then there is an endless supply of websites on either side.
This All Seems A Bit Overly Symmetrical - Why Is That?
It's because there's a very unpleasant symmetrical dynamic that drives how the camps interact with each other.
In normal argument, you very often get one side or another getting to the point where they question the motives and/or integrity of the other side. At root this often begins as a failure to sufficiently appreciate how different the other side's framing and other assumptions around the issue might be - eg one is unable to appreciate any other reason than bad faith for disagreement.
The problem with employing this kind of tactic in the context of vaccine argument is that one is effectively accusing the other side of being a baby-killer.
People rarely think the consequence of the accusations through. But that is where the accusations lead, and the presence of the endpoint skews their judgement. Whether pro or anti, once you characterise the other side as a baby-murderer, it's very hard to evaluate anything they say rationally. Logic gets sloppy. Text is misread. Civil argument becomes a distant memory.
What's The Best Way To Engage?
No matter how things seem to you, never question people's good faith!
- Andrew Wakefield is acting in good faith
- Paul Offit is acting in good faith
- People reluctant to vaccinate are acting in good faith
- The people who wish they would vaccinate are acting in good faith
- Governments and civil servants setting public health policy are acting in good faith
- Anti-vaccine activists who are convinced an autism epidemic is being covered up are acting in good faith
- Everyone is acting in good faith.
The people who are capable of engagement are those who can, even temporarily, hang onto this viewpoint.
Almost no-one can hold onto it all the time though - so don't discount someone if they lapse on occasion.