One of its symptoms is vaccine hesitancy
The debate about mandatory vaccination is really about social justice and power differentials.
The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy defines “vaccine hesitancy” as opting not to use or a delayed use of all available vaccines [i]. Although we often label it as such, this is not a dualistic battle between two extremes: Pro-vax or Anti-vax. There is an entire middle ground of relevant questions and concerns that, instead of being addressed, are contested with absolutist ideas, ridicule, and inflexibility. This is true for both sides of the debate.
There has been skepticism about vaccination since its introduction centuries ago — as there was with handwashing years later. People are often resistant to change, even if for the best. BUT why do people still mistrust vaccination when it was actually introduced before handwashing became standard?[ii] [iii]
The term “vaccine hesitancy” suggests some flexibility. In fact, many people are incorrectly labeled “anti-vaxxers” who may not be against vaccination per se. The number of people who believe vaccination is an affront to the power or will of God is unproblematic. Let’s be real. Most people are not against the idea of vaccination. “I can take something now that will prevent grave illness, paralysis, or death for me and others? Sign me up!”
The concept of vaccination is amazing and liberating! This is not what people take issue with. The resistance of the majority of hesitators can be summed up as a mistrust of those who develop, implement, mandate, and profit from vaccination — those who hold the power. Mistrust of those positions of power is well earned. It would take significant social change to reverse it.
We cannot use standard debates about civil liberties when civil liberties are not standard.
Some question the necessity of offensive vaccine ingredients (such as cells from animals, cells from aborted fetuses, or small doses of heavy metals). Those problems are being addressed through emerging vaccine technologies that use RNA strands.[iv] It will take some time to perfect RNA vaccines, as they tend to be fragile. Even if these concerns are eliminated, other factors related to vaccine hesitancy might prove to be much more challenging to overcome. Even though the debate about vaccination generally revolves around the science behind it, the social sciences are left out of the discussion.
Many are disquieted by the conflicts of interest when those who validate and promote vaccines also benefit financially from their use. Some have had personal negative experiences with vaccines and claim there is a lack of transparency about vaccination safety. Some belong to groups that have been historically mistreated by the scientific or medical community and have a warranted mistrust of these industries. Until we listen to and validate those questions in a respectful and reasonable manner, we will do nothing more than prove that science can be subjective and suspect.
In a society where illness, incarceration, and ecological ruin mean more profits for those in power, it is natural for citizens to conclude that profits (an inanimate concept) are valued more than people and other living things. How can we attempt to raise pillars of trust, good will, and compliance on a foundation of ill-gained profits?
Every day, people feel helpless as they witness what feels like the intentional erasure of their inherent rights to life, liberty, access, and abundance. Meanwhile it seems that those with legal, governmental, executive, and financial weight do more to empower themselves and ensure their supremacy. Until that dynamic gets flipped, we can and should expect people to feel skeptical of mandates from the “powers that be.”
“Where it is not built on social domination, science can be liberating.” — Eula Biss
At the end of the day, people’s mistrust of vaccination goes far beyond the laboratory, even though that is where the argument is often focused. Perhaps people do not feel at liberty to express their true fears? One Texas resident gets right to it, “Once you give up rights to your body, the government owns you.” Although extreme, this is not an unreasonable concern. The US government has been responsible for eugenic policies[v], fake vaccine drives elsewhere[vi], unethical public poisonings[vii], and unethical human experimentation[viii]. This is especially true for the most vulnerable populations. People should be clinging to their sovereignty and believing the government is capable of ill use of power.
Corporations and trusted institutions have their fair share of questionable practices. After an emergency H1N1 vaccine called Pandemrix was developed in Europe by GlaxoSmithKline, some individuals developed narcolepsy, including several minors[ix]. Years later, due to an indemnity agreement with the UK government, people have no one to hold accountable for their new debilitating illnesses. Professor David Salisbury, Department of Health Director of Immunisation, UK, stated, “Given its rarity, any excess risk could only be detected after huge population exposure done through post-marketing surveillance.”[x]
Is it possible to test medical products safely and ethically before their release? Are medical treatments (including vaccines) really just long-term, informal medical studies in which the general population is the unknowing test subject? How are people supposed to feel safe receiving medical “care” that nobody is accountable for when it causes damage?
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Vaccination levels influence the presence of disease in an entire population. The decisions, policies, and actions of individuals and groups regarding inoculation inevitably affect outcomes for others. The same can be said regarding social injustice. Injustice, much like a communicable disease, establishes itself in societies when enough of the population allows it. In the presence of injustice — including those asymptomatic cases that do not overtly display themselves — societies cannot enjoy immunity from this scourge. Only after taking steps to eradicate social injustice from our society can we reasonably expect to eradicate other social diseases, such as Covid, measles and whooping cough through vaccination.
Many assumptions are made about people who are “vaccine hesitant.” Social media memes and heated debates paint a picture of conspiracy-theory-adhering, backwards, narcissistic, science-deniers. This generalization of skeptical consumers reduces their concerns and direct experiences to nonsense.
We need people to question the status quo. More questions can lead to more answers. That is how hand washing and vaccination came about in the first place –rebellious thinkers questioning accepted norms. People seeking honest answers should be met with honest answers — even if the answer is “We don’t know.”
If the answer is, “Because things are corrupt,” people have the right to demand better answers.
[i] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X15005009?via%3Dihub
[ii] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/pdf/bumc0018-0021.pdf
[iii] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144013/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK144013.pdf
[iv] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906799/pdf/nihms955599.pdf
[v] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/pdf/zeb.2008.0576.pdf
[vi] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cia-fake-vaccination-campaign-endangers-us-all/
[vii] https://priceonomics.com/how-the-us-government-tested-biological-warfare-on/
[viii] https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues
[ix] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html
[x] https://www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe?fbclid=IwAR3AoSk_1b6wvvVHpo8kWyKO5nB2lNj0ZB3rZx3iSUnogTjpkJHll0xoGjU
