In case you missed, it, Part 1 of my writing on vaccines in the US can be found here.
I suppose that, like most other very controversial subjects, it shouldn't surprise me that the vaccine debate tends to get framed as an all or nothing, black and white, choosing sides issue. Whenever we are driven by fear, human beings tend to lose the ability to think rationally and begin to believe that there is a Right and a Wrong answer, and the question of whether or not to vaccinate can certainly be a fearful one.
I do continue to be mystified, however, by people who should know better - public health officials and medical practitioners, for starters - that position vaccines as an all-or-nothing proposition, and here is why:
Vaccines are not all created equal. Accusing me of being "anti-vaccine" because I am concerned about the safety and/or efficacy of some vaccines or the current US vaccination schedule is akin to saying I am "anti-car" because I wouldn't consider driving a Volkswagen but I might choose a Toyota.
- There are a vast array of vaccines available, some of which were created decades ago and some that are fairly recent.
- Some vaccines on the market are multivalent (that is, they are designed to inoculate against more than one disease-causing organism) and others are monovalent (for one organism only).
- Some vaccines were created to work against bacterial disease and others were designed for viruses.
- Some vaccines contain adjuvants (chemicals that are supposed to increase the body's immune response to create stronger immunity) such as aluminum and others do not.
- Some vaccines are designed to be injected once in a person's lifetime and others require multiple boosters in order to maintain a high level of immunity.
- Some vaccines contain inert ingredients derived from animal parts, others from human fetal tissue, and things like MSG (monosodium glutamate).
- Some vaccines have been tested many times over a long period of years on individuals of all ages, genders and races, and others have been "fast-tracked" which means that there was a determination that there was some public health risk that necessitated them getting to market faster, so there hasn't been the same rigorous level of testing.
I could go on, but hopefully it is imminently clear that the vaccines Americans are encouraged to give their children (and have themselves) are very different from one another. Much like buying a car, it is important to do research on each individual vaccine in order to determine a risk/benefit ratio and decide what is comfortable for you. For example, when my daughters' doctor recommended the chickenpox vaccine for them, I researched it as thoroughly as I could and ultimately chose not to have them get those shots because I felt as though the risks outweighed the benefits. Similarly, they have not had the HPV vaccine and I don't foresee either of them getting it anytime soon. (If you're curious about why, you can read this post particular to the Gardasil vaccine. Since I wrote it, there has been a great deal more information published by other people who are critical of both Gardasil and Cervarix that shouldn't be difficult to locate online.)
Ultimately, this issue is much more nuanced than many of us would like to believe, and because it is so complicated, we often fail to have productive conversations about it. In my heart of hearts, I believe that we are all striving for a country with healthy children, but if we are going to get there, it will, at some point, mean that we sit down together without fear or anger or labels and get everything out on the table with that singular goal in mind.