In the Harry Potter series, the villain, Lord Voldemort, is known as “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.” There’s a similar sentiment whenever someone expresses a heterodox opinion on vaccines.
The long knives are already out for Health and Human Services secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. While there are valid concerns among pro-life activists, the most prominent objection is Kennedy’s vaccine skepticism.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., labeled Kennedy a “denier of science.” Kennedy has pushed “the scientifically discredited belief that childhood vaccines cause autism,” The New York Times wrote.
Donald Trump isn’t backing down. In a recent NBC interview, Kristen Welker asked Trump whether childhood vaccines should be eliminated.
“If they’re dangerous for the children,” he replied. He continued, “Take a look at autism. Go back 25 years. Autism was almost nonexistent. It was, you know, one out of 100,000. And now it’s close to one out of 100.”
After Welker asserted that studies show no link between vaccines and autism, Trump responded, “I mean, something is going on. I don’t know if it’s vaccines. Maybe it’s chlorine in the water, right?” He concluded, “We have to find out.”
On another subject, this answer would sound like a dodge. All Trump said is that children shouldn’t be exposed to dangerous things and that he wants to know what’s causing autism. But because he’s talking about vaccines, it’s a jarring comment.
Look at the disdain America’s Chicken Little elites and the propaganda press heap on anyone who dares to question vaccine orthodoxy. That ranges from NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers to moms who don’t follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccination schedule. But that’s a mistake.
For one, this reaction suggests the supposed experts have something to hide. They don’t want to bury their opponents with studies showing how they’re right. They want to shame them into silence or destroy their professional lives.
This is the same tactic the Left uses against those who believe in intelligent design or question global warming alarmism. But ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy, not a sign of a strong intellectual argument.
The next problem is that stifling discussion limits nuance and new discoveries. Doctors once recommended older adults take a daily dose of baby aspirin to ward off cardiovascular disease. In 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reversed course for adults without heart disease. They concluded the risk of bleeding was greater than the number of heart attacks prevented. Even beneficial drugs have trade-offs.
These kinds of discussions should be had about vaccines. A century ago, whooping cough killed 6,000 children a year. As the name implies, whooping cough is spread through the air. It’s especially deadly for babies. Thanks to vaccines, there were only around 3,000 cases of whooping cough in the U.S. in 2022. That’s a medical miracle.
In contrast, Hepatitis B is spread primarily by sexual contact or dirty needles. That’s much less of a threat to newborns than an airborne virus. Yet, the CDC recommends infants receive the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth, 1 month, and 6 months. The CDC also recommends 6-month-olds get the COVID-19 vaccine. Healthy children have a vanishingly small risk of dying from COVID-19. The COVID-19 vaccine, however, has been linked to heart problems, especially in young males.
Perhaps there are trade-offs to the CDC now recommending some infants receive more than 20 vaccines by the time they’re 6 months old. Just like with baby aspirin, that topic shouldn’t be off limits to continued study and debate.
Finally, doing something different may lead to answers on autism, which Trump correctly notes has exploded. If the supposed experts can’t figure out why it’s growing so rapidly, then it’s time to investigate possible answers the “experts” previously dismissed.
RFK may end up being wrong about a lot, but he’s right on this. Raising questions about vaccines shouldn’t be verboten.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
