What Does “Green Our Vaccines” Really Mean?
"Green The Vaccines" by GoldenInWV via Photobucket
“Green our vaccines!” has been the rallying cry of anti-vaccinationists for the past few years, and there’s no denying the marketing appeal of this latest catchphrase. It plays on real concerns about our environment, as well as the current popular cultural meme of “greening up.”
It’s a very clever and convenient way for anti-vaccine groups to move from the specific, falsifiable hypotheses that have, in fact, been falsified—thimerosal=autism, MMR=autism—to a much broader indictment of vaccines, and one that is especially easy for the average layman to grasp. After all, who doesn’t like “green” products? Who doesn’t hate “toxins?”
But I’ve never seen a satisfactory explanation of what “greening our vaccines” should entail, other than the nebulous and scientifically naive admonition to “get the toxins out.”
In his fisking of Dr. Jay Gordon’s latest HuffPo post, Science-blogger Orac, over at Respectful Insolence, asks the questions that get to the heart of the matter [emphases mine]:
“You say you want safer vaccines. OK then, please, define for us exactly what you would define as ‘safe enough.’ Be very specific. What rate of complications for which vaccines would be ‘safe enough’? What rates of various infectious diseases against which these vaccines protect would be acceptable in order to balance the risk-benefit ratios. Please justify your conclusions with reasoning and citations of appropriate peer-reviewed scientific papers.
“You castigate vaccines for having ‘toxins.’ You’ve apparently backed off on formaldehyde, accepting that it’s a normal byproduct of human metabolism and that a baby makes more formaldehyde in a single day than is contained in the entire vaccine schedule. However, what ‘toxins’ would you remove? Be specific, and provide evidence that these ‘toxins’ actually cause harm.
“What specific evidence would it take for you to accept that vaccines are safe relative to the risk of disease and to start recommending that your patients vaccinate other than ‘reluctantly.’”
I don’t think anyone argues that safer vaccines wouldn’t be better. But we need to spend our collective time and money on eliminating known and quantifiable risks, rather than chasing unicorns like “green” or “toxin-free” vaccines.
Thank you for another informative blog. Where else could I get that kind of information written in such a perfect way? I have a project that I’m just now working on, and I have been on the look out for such info.
They’ve already answered that. They want there to be zero side effects or perceived side effects– as in, they want the vaccine to NOT ONLY have zero chance of harming their kid, they also want it to prevent coincidental harm from other illnesses. They will never be happy because they don’t understand risk v. benefit– to them a vaccine musts be 100% safe, safer than any food they eat (because an allergic reaction means it’s not “green” enough), and magically prevent their kid from getting any other illness or condition within a year after getting it, to be worthwhile, no matter how bad the illness is.
Yes, that’s why I don’t buy the “we’re not anti-vaccination” shtick from the leaders. They keep shifting the goalposts as hypothesis after hypothesis fails to pan out.
Green our vaccines? Food coloring? That was my first thought.
Hey, yeah! Special St. Paddy’s Day DTaP!