"Greening Our Vaccines" Code for Vaccine Rejectionism

Update: below the fold, responses to the actual events at the march.

Today June 4, 2008 there was a rally in Washington DC, lead by celebrities Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy.  TACA claims the following to be the message of the march.

• We are not anti-vaccine, we are anti-toxins.  Green our Vaccines!!
• Change the schedule, babies are getting too much too soon.
• We support informed consent for all families
• To give the moms and dads around the world a day to be heard. This is their day. This will be their moment. 

The problem is,  the notion that there are "toxins in vaccines" is propaganda--and it is a case of moving the goalposts to conceal the goal. 

The march's sponsors (TACA, Generation Rescue, HEAL Foundation - Healing Every Autistic Life and Moms Against Mercury) all share (or shared)  the notions that autism=mercury poisoning, from thimerosal in vaccines.   When the evidence didn't hold up the hypothesis, the goalposts were moved: now it is "toxins".   In this world-view, there are no safe vaccines, and no good reason to vaccinate children against disease.

A consortium of 30+ associations (including parents' associations) have signed an open letter to Congress (Download OpenLetterImmunizationPolicy.pdf), closing with

It is vital to the health of our nation that policy makers stand firm in supporting immunization and rejecting claims that have no foundation in science.

Back in November, 2007, Orac wrote an article debunking the "toxins in vaccines" gambit.   Recently, he's picked up the pace.

Orac's opus taken together is a good introduction for we non-scientists in how to refute the "toxins in vaccines" propaganda claims.

Below the fold, a list of relevant posts.

Orac's November 2007 introduction: the false claims of the "toxins in vaccines" claimants.  Snippet:

Of course, truth never was a major concern among antivaccinationists. Neither is knowledge. After all, Jenny McCarthy says that there's "ether" in vaccines, too. The only "ether" I could find in the CDC's list is polyethylene glycol pisooctylphenyl ether (Triton X-100), a common detergent agent used to make cell membranes permeable. In the past, a compound called Tween-Ether was sometimes used instead of Triton X-100; it's the same sort of thing, a fairly large organic molecule with an ether chemical group hooked on. I suspect that Jenny and most antivaccinationists are too chemistry-challenged to realize that this is not the same thing as diethyl ether, which was used as an anaesthetic agent before safer volatile agents were developed and is often commonly referred to as just "ether." Jenny also apparently doesn't realize that ether is insoluble in aqueous solution. The only way I could even conceive ether being used in the vaccine manufacturing process is if it's used for a chemical extraction, in which case, it too would be present in at best trace amounts.

Orac's February 14, 2008 analysis of the Generation Rescue "toxins in vaccines" advertisement, which kicked off the "Green our Vaccines" propaganda effort

if you want to see where J.B. and Jenny are really coming from, just take a gander at the conclusion of the ad:

    Why do we only test vaccines individually and never consider the combination risk of vaccines administered together? Given the dramatic rise of autism to epidemic levels, isn't it time for the scientific community to seriously consider the anecdotal evidence of so many parents? We urge the CDC and AAP to help us find the answers to these questions and learn why the increase in the number and composition of so many vaccinations has led to a surge in neurodevelopmental disorders. Our children deserve no less.

Note the moving of the goalposts and the unfalsifiable hypothesis, which insists that it is some unspecified "combination" of vaccines that causes autism. Of course, Generation Rescue would love nothing better than to have scientists test the many, many different combinations of vaccines. Never mind that it would be not only logistically virtually impossible, but it would be unethical, given that it would require some children not to receive protective vaccines as a control. Note the lovely conspiracy-mongering. Note the repetition of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Deconstructing "Green Our Vaccines" Claims (June 3, 2008)

Given that I've already dealt with this in detail before, I don't see the need to do it again, other than to point out a couple of things. I think that I can best illustrate why the "toxin" gambit is in fact an antivaccine gambit by going back to a time three years ago when I lurked on the discussion boards of Mothering.com, where the prevailing opinion is pro-woo and anti-vaccine. This was perhaps best encapsulated by a comment by a woman using the 'nym Jen123:

    Mercury seems to be getting tons of coverage. When that deal is settled and we win, we need to go after another ingredient. We'll dismantle the vaccine industry ingredient by stupid ingredient if we have to.

    Who is with me?

Suffice it to say, no one, apparently, wasn't with her. I will give Jen123 kudos, though. She perfectly and succinctly stated the true aim of the "toxin" gambit. The "Green Our Vaccines" (GOV) movement is nothing more than the same sentiment wrapped up in a nice, friendly slogan that on the surface sounds so very reasonable, particularly when antivaccinationists mention all those really scary-sounding ingredients and either fail to understand or fail to mention that there is a reason why every one of those ingredients is in there and that the dose makes the poison. Many of those "ingredients" are not ingredients at all but rather cells used to grow up the viruses used to make the vaccine and then later removed, and others are used in the manufacturing process to do things like lyse cells, inactivate virus, and other necessary steps. In the end vaccine, they are present in no more than trace amounts.

Antivaccinationists are also not too concerned with getting the actual niceties of the chemistry right, confusing ethylene glycol (antifreeze, which is not in vaccines) with polyethylene glycol (PEG, which is in some vaccines and is also in a number of skin creams, toothpaste, and medications, including laxatives) or ethyl ether (the flammable anaesthetic) with polyethylene glycol pisooctylphenyl ether (Triton X-100, a kind of soap/detergent). Nor are they concerned with getting the niceties of the biology right, either. They like to mention "aborted fetuses," as though vaccines were somehow made from aborted fetal tissue, when in reality some viruses are grown in cells derived from an aborted fetus nearly 45 years ago. Antivaccinationists know that, but they like to try to feed in to religious objections to abortion by playing this gambit, which is in reality no more than a variant of the "toxin" gambit, although at least they've gotten a bit smarter about it and don't say "tissues" anymore. The whole bit about "monkey cells" is pretty dumb as well. Some viruses are indeed grown in monkey kidney cells, but it's not as though these cells are retained in the vaccine. There's a little step called "purification" that antivaccinationists seem to think that manufacturers forget .The viral particles are isolated and the cells are eliminated, just as the human fetal cells are. Maybe they believe in a homeopathic theory of vaccination, in which the vaccines somehow retain a memory of the monkey cells with which they have been in contact but that have been removed from the final product. Finally, antivaccinationists aren't too concerned about the niceties of pharmacology. They'll rant on and on about formaldehyde, neglecting the fact that most people are exposed in a single day to more formaldehyde from plastics, plywood, furniture and furniture finishes, and a variety of other household products and objects in every house that babies are exposed to from their entire vaccine schedule.

Orac on the alleged lack of safety testing of the current vaccine schedule

I will quote Jenny one more time:

    People need to know that there has never been any safety testing on combinations of vaccines and yet doctors were giving eight shots at once.

This is, not surprisingly, another antivaccination canard. All new vaccines are tested in clinical trials against the background of the current vaccine schedule. In other words, if it's a new vaccine not currently recommended, in clinical trials it's merely added to the current schedule. If the vaccine is for the same disease as a currently used vaccine, then the trial looks at the new vaccine versus the old vaccine, all other vaccines in the schedule remaining the same. The reason we don't do serial "one-at-a-time" trials is simple, but nonetheless antivaccinationists never seem able to grasp the concept: It would be extremely unethical to withhold protective vaccines from children in order to test them against no vaccines because it would leave the no vaccine group of children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases. Of course, many antivaccinationists, at least the ones with some knowledge of how clinical trials work, know this. The reason antivaccinationists make this claim is in order to imply that every possible combination of vaccines need to be tested individually and that, if this isn't done, there "has never been any safety testing of combinations of vaccines." What utter twaddle! In reality, this is yet another thinly-disguised attempt to move the goalposts. Antivaccinationists know that they kind of testing they demand is both unethical and impractical, but demanding it allows them to claim (falsely) that there is no science supporting the safety of the current vaccine schedule. It's every much a technique to move the goalposts as the "Green Our Vaccines" slogan is.

Don't Be Taken In by the 'Green the Vaccines'  Rhetoric: A Peek Inside the Vaccine Rejecters' Redoubt

there is a huge contrast between Sheri and Barbara when compared to the "Green Our Vaccine" organizers. At least Sheri and Barbara are completely honest in stating clearly that they are anti-vaccine. They make no bones about it and don't try to hide or sugar-coat their true beliefs. Not so Jenny McCarthy, J. B. Handley, the organizers of the "Green Our Vaccines" rally, all of whom assiduously (and disingenuously) repeat over and over their mantra that they are "not anti-vaccine" but "pro-safe vaccine," while their actions, rhetoric, and constant shifting of the goalposts for what would constitute a "safe vaccines" acceptable enough to them that they would allow their children to be vaccinated unambiguously indicate otherwise. The problem, of course, is that McCarthy's more political approach, which hides the true antivaccinationist agenda behind the "Green Our Vaccines" movement, is more insidious than that of Nakken and Labrecque.

Bloggers Critical of the "Green Our Vaccines" Movement--Orac compiles a list:  What follows is my translation of Orac's list.

1. Kev Leitch on Jenny McCarthy's GOV rhetoric--she is anti-vaccination, period.
2. Kristina Chew on enough with spending on GOV propaganda, let's start spending on our autistic children's real needs, such as education
3. Mike Stanton: here are why some these "toxins" are used in the production of vaccines--and they are toxic how, exactly?
4. PalMD rebukes Jenny for the absence of science in her propaganda
5. Kristina Chew: Rebranding the alleged autism-vaccine connection doesn't make it any more to the point when it comes to the real needs of persons with autism.
6. Virginia Hughes on the real dangers of the vaccine rejectionists

I think I'll keep looking to see if there are any new posts opposing the goals of the June 4 march.

1. Autism News Beat: Beware of Greeks Blaring Myths (May 19 2008)
2. Linaliam: maybe I should photoshop a scare-mongering image about all the "toxins" in an orange.
3. From the UK, Dr. Aust's Spleen: The "Toxins in Vaccines" crowd are still with us,in which he urges readers to write to their MPs to counter the Kirby propaganda--more about Kirby's visit to the UK than the June 4 rally, but related.
4. Dr. Aust's Spleen: Who needs facts? These vaccine-conspiracy pieces write themselves--more on the UK media's cluelessness in science reporting, especially around the MMR/Wakefield fiasco and how it may be replicated in Kirby reporting.
5. Stifled Mind on countering Jenny McCarthy's propaganda
6. Seeing Beauty on More of the Consequences of not Vaccinating
7. The Voyage (who I believe lives in Ireland) covers both Kirby's propagandizing in the UK and the stupidity of the "Green our Vaccines" movement
8. The Royal Court of the Polish Ghetto Queen: Kristina Chew Speaks for Me

Update: Critical responses to the June 4 rally and speeches  I have moved continuing coverage of the critical responses to the post: Hundreds, not Thousands at GOV March; Lots of Science-Free Posturing

1. Kristina Chew: What Benefit is there in "Changing the Schedule"?
2. Orac: Jim and Jenny's speeches were propaganda-heavy but science-free
3. Orac: "Safer Vaccines" or Vaccine Rejectionism In A Green T-Shirt?
4. Clotted Cognition: You People Make Me Sick!
5. Stop. Think. Autism: Preliminary Response to March: The Whole Green Mess
6. Neurologica: Drinking the Anti-Vaccine Koolaide
7. Stifled Mind: The Amount of Stupid is Painful in "Green our Vaccines"
8. Stop. Think. Autism: Carrey and McCarthy Don't Speak for Me
9. Kev Leitch: March of Hundreds, not Thousands;
10. Arthur Allen's Report on the March: Yep, Anti-Vaccinationist

 

Comments

[Sharon]

Thanks for keeping the list and for the link. Yes, I am in Ireland. To be specific (if you're interested!) I'm in the north of the country so politically in part of the UK, hence my great interest in UK stories.

[Liesl]

I posted a response, too. But I was really, really mad when I wrote it, so it's a little, um, passionate: http://www.clottedcognition.com/2008/06/you-people-make-me-sick.html

[Terry]

You're a loser and these vaccines are a disgrace and ARE causing Autism along with many other allergies and disablilties...so get your facts straight!

[Liz Ditz]

Gee, Terry, that's a rather bold assertion. Care to back it up with some facts?

[Spankermatic]

Nice one Liz. I know we cannot hope to turn these people from their crusade - its a bit of an unsinkable rubber duck, but at least we can provide valuable information for people wanting to know more on the subject.

[Roman]

Where do you get your funding from?

What is the longest time study for any one vaccine?

What is the effect of aluminum in humans?