Vaccination as a form of religion

Ochlophobist recently touched on vaccination in response to posts* here.

In the course of the debate which followed, he had a couple things to say. These really need their own post (hence this one).

On vaccination being an utopian idol:

One of our kids' doctors uses the phrase, "for the health of the herd." That is an abstraction which I find demonic. I am not going to partake of a "medicine" which was made from murdered babies for something so abstract as the health of the herd.

I've heard a lot recently about the need to vaccinate in order to provide "herd immunity". If you thought the guilt engendered by the decision not to vaccinate your beloved son was bad, try bearing the guilt for all the now-doomed sick and immune-compromised in society.

I couldn't articulate why it was I didn't think much of the argument, other than that I do not like being manipulated by guilt in general.

But here Ochlophobist strikes to the heart of the matter. "Herd immunity" is an idol, not unlike the Moloch of Palestine and Carthage. Presumably the Phoenicians had good reasons to sacrifice their children - health, welfare, the good of the state - but the fact remains that at bottom, the issue is child sacrifice, infanticide. Here in the 21st century, our issue is that these [anti-viral] vaccinations are "medicines" made from murdered babies.

On the trustworthiness of the medical/pharmaceutical industry:

... my doctors, like the doctors of nearly everyone I know who has made the same decision my wife and I have, tell us we should not believe these extremist things we read on the internet, and not trust them, they are full of misinformation. The amount of information provided, should one just follow the links in the various posts linked to our quoted here, that come from official government sources hostile to the anti-vaccination voices, speaks volumes, in my opinion. But then we get told that one must have a graduate degree in bio-chemistry to understand these things - hogwash. It is not that complicated in terms of the outline of the science [...], and the gravity of the moral aspect is rather uncomplicated. [...] [G]iven any knowledge of the outright lies and perverse misinformation pharmaceutical companies have engaged in since WWII when they took on their role in the military-industrial fascist-capitalist complex, right up to the present, and given that various government agencies are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies, why on earth would I be inclined to believe what they have to say on the matter? It would seem highly imprudent to me to assume what they say to be true.

1. They assured us that mercury in vaccines would not hurt us, and that the voices against it were unscientific and alarmist,
   
2. ... until they said that they were pulling it, and that evidence did suggest the toxin was having ill effects on children.
   
3. They then assured us that virtually all of the vaccines with mercury were out of circulation,
4. ... until that was shown to be wrong and they said that with certain vaccines, the supplies at hand included a percentage containing mercury that is not exactly knowable, which is as far as they would go after investigators pressed them on continued mercury in vaccines.
   

I only mention one example with regard to pharmaceuticals and vaccines, but what of the many, many, many examples to be found of pharmaceuticals distorting, falsifying, covering up, politically manipulating, and so forth? Who in their right mind would trust these institutions with regard to anything they say? And it has been quite well documented that the federal government has been the lap dog of these companies so many a time, the same should be said of their "determinations" with regard to public health issues. [Bulleting mine.]

And, as has said elsewhere, the ignorance on the use of aborted fetuses for the production of vaccines is very prevalent in the medical community. When it gets right down to it, doctors, nurses, and pharmacists all place their faith in their own industry. They do not read the product monographs, so this is a blind trust. Kind of like a religion. (I refer you back to the comments about idolatry.)

I am reminded of a conversation E. and I had with our son's paediatrician. She was the head paediatrician for my son's ward, so hers were no Walmart credentials. One of the initial points I made in objection to vaccination was that B. had a high likelihood of serious allergies. We didn't know what exactly, but the very early onset of eczema made it all but inevitable. I said that we did not know if there was anything present in the vaccines to which he might be allergic.

She pooh-poohed our concerns, telling us that we had nothing to worry about, insisting that she would vaccinate her child under our circumstances.

Well, one of the vaccines on B.'s schedule contained attenuated virus propagated in egg yolk. The product monograph warns doctors that the vaccine is contraindicated for children with egg allergies. Now this was exactly the kind of thing that I had suspected might be present - our concern was therefore a valid one and her dismissal insulting in retrospect.

Eggs are not an uncommon allergen either (Canada lists the 9 most common allergies as peanuts, tree nuts, sesame seeds, milk, eggs, seafood, soy, wheat, and sulphites). So her lack of attention to this detail can only be credited to the same reason she didn't know that aborted fetuses were used: she had Faith in vaccination and so she hadn't read the monograph.

- V.

As an addendum, let me note that B. turned out not to be allergic to eggs. From this vantage point, I can say the vaccine likely would not have harmed him. But he was allergic to milk, sulphites, and likely soy. Our worries had validity. Taking the vaccine would have been playing Russian Roulette with the life of our son - never mind that we would have won, Russian Roulette is still a game of chance and the act of an idiot.

* Our related posts are: On Vaccination, "What Ever Happened to Baby WI-38?", and Why are our children so sick?