The choice by parents to not vaccinate their children is not a simple one. The Pro- and Anti- camps don't want to paint it that way, a simple binary is all that is apparently desired, at least among the voices that yell the loudest.
In discussions with my wife on the topic, I never could get her to understand the nature of my position regarding vaccines, in large part because I could see past the propaganda that each "side" was using to try and make the "us vs. them" as clear as possible.
Vaccines work. That is not controversial to people who are honest, the controversy comes entirely from what is built upon that simple fact, and that is where the "houses" of the Pro- and Anti- stances that are most popular will eventually crumble to the ground. The reason they haven't already is that enough time hasn't passed for the consequences of their errors to have played out completely.
For example, one disconnect that people struggle with is understanding the difference between how something works at the hypothetical level, and what we actually deal with in reality. An anecdotal argument of this type I got into with a friend years ago which highlighted this problem was on the topic of circles.
I had said that this: ____________ was the most accurate representation of a circle that we could materially make.
It's a 2d shape looked at from the side, so it becomes a 1d line.
The basic reason why this is the most accurate representation is that it has no thickness, and it has defined edges.
Now, the reason that the 2D shape most people associate with a circle is not nearly as accurate is because a circle has no corners or vertexes. From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, they even more specifically state: "a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve".
From pixels on a screen to the arrangement of atoms in the graphite deposited on paper, we never actually achieve representing this perfectly. Pixels are arranged in a rectilinear manner, so while our eyes cannot perceive it, when we see a circle on a screen, it's an abstraction, a close but not-quite-perfect representation of a circle. Similarly, while our manufacturing efforts are impressive, the way that subatomic particles arrange themselves is something we still can't control at the individual particle level, and even what looks or feels to be a smooth surface, let alone a perfect circle, upon close inspection under a microscope reveals an imperfect arrangement. Now, in most cases, this difference is irrelevant, we can work just fine with the abstracted manifestation of a circle because the details which differentiate our imperfect manifestation from the definition can be safely ignored.
But under what circumstances are such differences sufficiently important?
Return policies for goods that we have purchased are a great example of an answer to that question. When we purchase something and expect a certain feature or functionality, and the resulting product does not have those features or functionality, we can make a value judgment on whether the difference is enough to demand that the product be replaced or currency refunded.
When the disparity between expectation and manifestation are sufficient, we do want to seek redress.
And that's the nature of the nuance with my position on vaccines.
I've seen the chart that shows how many communicable diseases saw significant reduction before the implementation of vaccines. Such a graph does not change the fact that vaccines work at all, but does address the cost-to-benefit ratio.
I've seen the paperwork criticizing the ingredients used in vaccines. Such papers do no change the fact vaccines work at all, but it does address how we make or store vaccines.
I've seen the claims about how children were harmed by vaccines. Such claims do not change the fact vaccines work at all, but does expose that whatever chemical combination was used in the vaccine triggered a response in an individual, and we should try to figure out what that is exactly, but the numbers clearly demonstrate that it's not a very common problem at all. It's not impossible, but it is improbable, but we should still seek to understand what factors affect the odds.
Finally, I've seen the articles from people who do try to explain how vaccines don't actually work, and while this would directly deal with the fact vaccines work at all, I do not possess the required expertise to tell when medical professionals who refute such articles in layman's terms that I do understand are simply lying.
To give an example of what that could look like, I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and both my job and hobbies all involve interactions with machines. Because of that knowledge and experience, when I see "Popular Mechanics" try to debunk criticisms of the 9/11 story, I can tell where they are hoping their audience doesn't know enough about structural engineering and materials science to see through the lies.
Similarly, I've worked in the aerospace industry for about a decade. With the recent resurgence of the popularity of "Moon Landing Hoax" theories, I can quickly tell who has really done their homework and really understands the mechanisms they're describing, whether Pro- or Anti-, and who is just parroting something that was merely sufficiently convincing for them to believe.
With vaccines, I don't have that innate ability because I haven't spent the time to become an expert. When I do start digging though, it doesn't take long for me to find that people forgot the "verify" part of "trust but verify". It's certainly possible that every piece of information I am looking at is a deceit, but then such a simplistic heuristic applied consistently would mean that I can't trust either the Pro- or Anti- stances regarding vaccines at all.
So when things are that bad, what choice does one have?
Well, at the most simplistic level, I cannot know the ingredients in a specific vial with any degree of certainty.
I don't know which ingredients are supposed to be there, and which aren't.
I simply don't know how big the disparity is between what is in a particular vial and what should be there based on the hypothetical ideal of a vaccine.
So the best answer is to believe neither, do nothing, and wait till more information can be gathered.
If we can't trust large organizations that sell products for a profit, then every Anti- website which sells books, herbs, supplements, and all sorts of alternatives is no more worthy of trust than the FDA or the CDC or "Big Pharma". They're all in it for themselves, and will say anything they need to drive you to make a choice that lines one of their pockets.
Eroding trust in established organizations has consequences that people still haven't fully comprehended.
Don't confuse people who act like you as doing so for the same reason. Don't mistake someone who seems to agree with you for having gotten there the same way that you did. And if people want to undermine trust instead of building accountability, just enjoy the show when the same simplistic and crude dynamics are used right back on them.
No comments:
Post a Comment