Note: you can see a MUCH more thorough response to this same article
here.
This is a copy of the e-mail I sent to the council members at The Gospel Coalition:
I
was very, VERY disappointed and upset by the article you published,
“The FAQ: What Christians Should Know About Vaccines”. I found it to be
lacking not only in scientific facts but lacking in Christian wisdom as
well. As this is a “non-essential” issue, Christians can disagree on
vaccinations. What I believe was wrong about this post is that 1) there
was false information, and 2) it implied that parents who do not
vaccinate are a “harm” to others and pushing against “the common good”.
This is not fair. The author was indirectly telling people that they
ought to vaccinate. It is not right to take a non-Biblical issue and use
your platform to tell people what to do, and further, to tell them they
are hurting others by not doing so. This is an extremely controversial
topic and posting this was a mistake. One, because of the mistakes and
misinformation in it (some of which I will address below), and second,
because many Christians have strong convictions (not just
“philosophical” opinions) on this matter. For you to publish this
article was very hurtful and offensive… If you were posting a
contrasting side than it would be different, but this is extremely
one-sided, as if it is the only reasonable and right position.
As
a strong Christian who has really appreciated and been greatly blessed
by TGC I was very offended (and honestly angry) that my personal
convictions as a result of solid scientific research is being suggested
as being wrong…. That I am hurting others, selfish and even immoral????
I
have to say, having studied this topic as much as possible for a year
and a half - which is not very long I know - but I immediately knew the
correct facts for multiple things the author claimed. Clearly, he has
not studied this topic much for himself (I’m not saying that pridefully,
it’s just a fact.)
As for the misinformation I
believe is in the article…. Most important things first, I will address
the authors “four factors Christians should consider” about
vaccinations:
1. Quoting Scott James: “As Christians,
our position on vaccinations should be based on the best available
empirical evidence and not on anti-science propaganda, anecdotes,
celebrity non-endorsements, or unwarranted skepticism of government
institutions such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”
ALL
the vaccine-hesitant or anti/ex-vaxers that I know, do not vaccinate
based on evidence and scientific research! To suggest that those who
don’t vaccinate are mis-informed because they disagree with mainstream
ideas is rather ironic coming from a Christian. Doctors, scientists, the
NIH and CDC are not without mistakes or faults, and not above being
deceptive and/or blinded themselves. Every person has the responsibility
to seek the truth – not unwisely trust doctors or scientists simply
because they have a degree. The statement above from Scott James is a
complete offense to me and many others I know. I have read multiple
books by doctors, watched hours of lectures by medical professionals on
disease, vaccines, etc. I have read testimonies, watched medical
meetings where they discuss vaccines, etc. I by no means am an expert,
but I have done enough research to be convinced of my position - as
unpopular as it may be.
2. “Second, we should strive
to seek the common good (Jer. 29:7). The harm done to children from not
getting vaccinated is exponentially greater than the harm—both physical
and moral—of using the vaccines.”
As I expound on
below, this is completely untrue. Furthermore, tell me, is the author
here actually taking a Scripture and applying it to a non-Biblical issue
and suggesting readers that it is immoral to not vaccinate???? That is a
SERIOUS thing, and you’d better be REALLY careful. I fear this is a
twisting of Scripture to fit one's personal opinion.
3.
“Third, we should remember that rather than using our liberty to avoid
vaccinations, evangelicals have historically been at the forefront of
promoting vaccinations.”
So what? When vaccines first
came out, everyone was supportive of them. They didn’t know what was in
them. Historically, the Catholic church has been at the forefront of
burning people at the stake… obviously a practice they should continue
because historical practices are apparently not subject to moral
evaluation with the presence of new data.
Side note: When
cigarettes first came out nearly every doctor recommended them. But, “do
what your doctor says because he/she has a degree and knows what
they’re talking about”. Yes? No?
4. In fourth point: “Also, a
parent who refuses to have their child vaccinated is morally responsible
for the outcome of that choice. If their child were to get sick and/or
die because of the rejection of the vaccine or cause other children to
become sick, they would be morally culpable.”
First of
all, my moral duty is to God and my conscience. Second, if my child is
healthy they cannot get anyone sick. If they do happen to get sick, we
act responsibly and quarantine, and get appropriate medical treatment.
It is very unlikely that we will actually put a “at-risk” individual at
risk at all. (See my point on “herd immunity”.) My duty is to my
children and their long-term health. The actual risk of dying for a
“vaccine-preventable illness” is actually very small if you actually do
the research to know what they are, how you can catch them and the
actual risks of the disease.
Again I ask you, is the
author suggesting that those who do not vaccinate are acting immorally?
Again, this is a very serious charge, and there is no Biblical basis for
it.
I will address SOME of the other mistakes in this article:
1. "A vaccine stimulates your immune system to produce antibodies, exactly as it would if you were exposed to the disease. "
Technically
correct, but patently false in the vernacular understanding. To say,
"exactly as it would if..." in the vernacular context implies the
response *and* the antibodies will be identical. They are not. *Only*
the response is identical. The antibodies *may* be similar enough to
cause complete or partial immunity, usually for a shorter period than
the actual disease. God designed the immune system an amazing way –
vaccines shortcut it and don’t even come close to its effectiveness.
2. "After getting vaccinated, you develop immunity to that disease, without having to get the disease first."
This
is only *sometimes* true. To state it as fact is similar in principle
to saying that if you have sex then you will get pregnant. For most
women, *with sufficient iterations at the right time* it will probably
be true, but there are too many things that can cause it to fail to be
able to state it as fact for the general case. Most vaccines boast *at
best* about a 75% success rate at immunization. Vaccines do not and can
not give true and lifelong immunity.
3. "Vaccines have
proven to be one of humankind’s greatest inventions, and the single
most powerful and effective way of reducing disease and improving global
health."
This statement is widely argued by
biologists, doctors, historians, and immunologists. It cannot be stated
as fact without qualifiers. Indoor plumbing and better sanitation has
done more to reduce disease and improve health than any kind of medical
treatment.
4. Herd Immunity: "When a critical portion
of a community is immunized against a contagious disease (typically
between 85 percent and 95 percent), the remaining members are also
protected because there is little opportunity for an outbreak."
This
statement relies on a study which showed that 65% immunity was
sufficient to protect the herd. It was also a study done on cows that
had experienced the *actual* disease, not a vaccine. The study cannot be
used to extend the argument to vaccines, nor does the evidence suggest
anything close to 85% or 95%. It is a patently false statement.
Also,
there have been multiple places in the US where “herd immunity” has
been at 90-95% - and yet there were STILL outbreaks – with many of the
vaccinated getting sick. If vaccines and herd immunity really worked we
wouldn’t be having many of the outbreaks. The ones in the
Jewish/religious communities are different of course – those parents
aren’t afraid of measles and so don’t mind if their kids get them. I’ll
remind you that this WAS the way everyone thought 50 years ago…. Pretty
much every school-aged child got the measles and hardly anyone died from
it in the US (contrary to the claims). The death rate from measles (in
the US) was already near 0 when the vaccine came out.
5. "Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women..."
Pregnant
women are no longer considered ineligible for almost any vaccine
because "the vaccine affects you, not the baby". However, there has
never been ANY testing at all on pregnant women.
6.
"When parents refuse to vaccinate their children for philosophical
reasons, they increase the risk of disease exposure for the entire
community."
But if vaccination creates immunity then
exposure to something that cannot infect you is irrelevant. Either the
vaccine works and this statement is errant, or the vaccine does not work
and the article is irrelevant. Also, many parents have scientific
reasons and CONVICTIONS about not vaccinating – this is much more than
an opinion or “philosophical” reasons. To suggest/imply that by not
vaccinating because of a personal opinion is hurting others or being
selfish is extremely offensive. Even more so to those who have
experienced vaccine injury.
7. "In more than 30 years of research, there has been no causal connection established between vaccinations and autism."
In
more than 30 years of research, there has been no causal connection
established between tobacco and cancer. When you are not legally allowed
to research for causation because to intentionally cause something
would be unethical then a failure to find the causation for which you
cannot legally test is meaningless regardless of the amount of time
involved. Many parents have testified to their child regressing into
autism following a vaccine, but it is not always the case. Un-biased
third-party testing is needed, but of course the manufactures do not
want it done and do everything they can to disprove this theory. Yet it
has not been defeated.
8. "The results showed that the
total amount of antigen from vaccines received was the same between
children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and those who did not have the
disorder."
But if the bodies react *to* those antigens
differently then the quantity is irrelevant. If one person is immune to
peanuts and another is deathly allergic to them, then the presence of
the same quantity of peanuts in their bodies cannot be used to explain
away the fact that one had no adverse side effects and the other died.
9.
On Wakefield: "Some people ignore the overwhelming evidence and still
believe the connection exist because it was given credence in 1998 by
the publication of a fraudulent research paper... In May 2010, British
regulators revoked Wakefield’s license, finding him guilty of “serious
professional misconduct.”"
And both of the other
doctors involved who had insurance sued the organization and the courts
found the organization's findings to be unfounded and biased. They had
their licenses reinstated. Wakefield did not have such insurance and the
entirety of the work and all associated infamy was placed on him.
Also:
"Despite being discredited for fraud and unethical conduct, Wakefield
is still considered the primary source and champion for those who
erroneously believe in the connection between autism and vaccines."
This
claim is patently false. Almost no serious pro-parental choice, delayed
vaccinater, partial vaccine scheduler, or anti-vaxxer cites Wakefield's
case study as the primary evidence against vaccines. There are
literally hundreds of studies done by 3rd party organizations from
multiple countries which show a statistically significant correlation
between vaccines and autism. The association between aluminum and autism
has been studied by psychologists as a point of serious concern. *ONLY*
pro-vaccine acolytes still believe that non-pro-vaccine people hold
Wakefield's case study on the correlation between intestinal health and
autism (which has been recently proven) and made a side note that
vaccines had an association with poor intestinal health as the primary
source. It is a categorically ignorant statement.
10.
“…seizures, inflammation of the brain, and fainting—that can be caused
by certain vaccines, although these outcomes occur rarely. The most
common side effects are mild, such as redness and swelling where the
shot was given.”
These vaccine reactions do not really
“occur rarely”. The author completely overlooked the hundreds of
reported vaccinate injuries and deaths (mind you only a small percentage
of vaccine-related injuries are actually reported). This is big mistake
and extremely hurtful to parents/families who have suffered as a result
of a vaccination. This is a real and serious problem that is being
completely ignored by the medical community.
11. Fetal
cells in some vaccines: Author quotes, “One cannot accurately say that
the vaccines contain any of the cells from the original abortion.”
There
is absolutely NO way to know this for sure. What we do know: Human
cells are listed as an *ingredient* in some vaccines. And, human DNA is
being injected into our bodies. That the vaccine is “purified” changes
nothing about these facts. Abortion aside, many people also have issue
with the fact that we are injecting human or animal DNA into our bodies.
There also has been NO testing about whether or not this is safe, or if
it in anyway affects or alters our DNA. This is also a big concern to
those who are vaccine hesitant.
12. In addition, “Nor
should we be overly concerned with the “slippery slope” of people being
murdered in order to expand the number of organ donations. (If we saw
evidence of that happening, however, we should change our objection.)”
But
we ARE seeing more and more abortions and more and more aborted baby
parts being sold – and many of them are being used in research for
vaccines. But funny, the author doesn’t mention this.
In
closing, there is SO much out there about viruses, disease, illness,
health than what mainstream science/medical field supports. More and
more scientists and medical professionals are coming to see the risks
associated with vaccines.
I hope this response makes
you at least more understanding to why some of your brothers and sisters
in Christ choose to selectively vaccinate or not to vaccinate. And I
hope you will seriously consider that it was not wise to publish this
article, and I ask that you retract it. For the sake of truth.
-Amelia Coburn, Massachusetts, USA
