Collected from my online exploits.
1) Vaccines have been proven to work. See eradication of smallpox and near-eradication of polio; the formerly declining rates of MMR; etc. that cannot have any other explanation.
2) If burden of proof falls to the positive claim, then it is up to the vaccine folk to prove their various claims, e.g. that vaccines kill or that there are "natural" alternatives. Therefore, skepticism of their claims is justified.
3)IF there were pre-existing "natural" treatments/vaccines, as some people claim (the argument being that vaccines work, but are unnecessarily dangerous/powerful) then we would not be seeing diseases that have been controlled with vaccines running rampant in areas without access to the vaccines. Don't even get me started on the supernatural treatments ...
Skepticism is about the discipline and detachment to engage in rigorous systematic testing of verifiable claims. It is not doubt for doubt's sake. So Arturo's definition is somewhat closer, but it still misses the point: There comes a point when it is no longer prudent or virtuous to be skeptical.
Vitamins were not discovered until the early 20th century; the first vitamin supplement (C, for those who care) was not available until the 1930's - yet there doesn't seem to be much skepticism regarding their effectiveness, especially in light of their novelty in the scope of the entire field and history of nutrition.
I would not be surprised to learn that there are, in fact, anti-vitamin activists who believe God is in their whole foods keeping them healthy or some such nonsense (and in fact, now that I think about it, the Raw Food movement may at its roots be a manifestation of Vitamin Skepticism ...) but this does not mean that we, as skeptics, must abandon our certainty in Vitamins due to doubts raised largely by Lay-Knowledge, Magical Thinking, or downright Quackery.
0 comments:
Post a Comment