Kaelind Orton

Philosophy 1250
Signature Assignment

Context:
I decided to write about the vaccine issue that has been going on in the
medical field for a while now. This issue is based off of whether or not vaccines are
more helpful or more harmful to us and especially to children and infants. The
arguments range from saying that vaccines do indeed help us more than harm us,
from they are not useful at all and actually cause the sickness, to its okay for adults
to get vaccinated but not for infants. This particular argument that I found is against
giving vaccines to infants until they are at least toddlers. I got this argument from
the Hexys Jocey Fruit website. http://hexysjoyceyfruit.com/index.php/shortargument-essay-anti-vaccination/

Introduction:
On June 9th 2012, Jocey wrote this argument based on vaccines and why they
are more harmful than helpful. She goes on to explains how vaccines are supposed
to prevent bacteria, infections and diseases but they end up being one of the main
causes of bacteria, infections and diseases. She believes that this is because of their
live-attenuated organisms. She goes on to explain that the pathogens, which is
bacteria or microorganisms that can cause diseases, are only partly killed. This can
therefore harm those with weak immune systems. So she believes that vaccines
should not be given to young children and infants under the age of 18 months, until
they have fully stabilized immune systems. She argues that its better to not give
infants shots at all. She believes the risk of getting sick is less likely without shots.
Issue: Are vaccines more helpful or harmful in preventing sicknesses?
Conclusion: Vaccines are more harmful for infants than helpful since their immune
system is not fully developed. Infants will be more likely to become sick if they
receive a vaccine. But once the child is 18 months to 3 years it should be more
useful to get one than to not.
Burden of Proof: Joyce holds the B.O.P. because she made the claim. The rule
B.O.P. is whoever makes the claim has the burden of proving it to be true. Joyce
made the claim therefore she has the burden. Since not everyone will agree with
her opinion she has the burden to prove to those that dont agree with her that her
opinion is correct.
Premises: Joyce states that giving an infant a flu shot is more dangerous than not
giving them one at all. She claims that the live-attenuated organisms are the
reason why infants or more likely to become sick with vaccines than without. She

believes that its best and safest if children dont get vaccinated until they are at
least 18 months old up to 3 years, where their immune system is fully developed.

Diagram

Response with Fallacies:

Dear Jocey,

I read your argument and I have to say that I agree with you. I believe you
are completely right because you date all the way back to ancient times and
everything that people say about ancient times must be true because no one can
prove that it never happened. I mean where else would you have gotten those
stories from the past besides from some journals that people wrote. Either you
made them up or theyre true and you seem like a very honest and reliable person
so I know you would and could never make up anything like that just to prove your
point! You also went to modern medicine and the history behind it and once again
you must be right about that because history doesnt lie!
Also how can doctors be so cruel as to murder innocent children by giving
them shots! Its absolutely sickening! For years doctors have been killing off
innocent children who cannot even defend themselves because their bodies
immune systems are not fully matured, grown, or developed yet. Their little bodies
cannot stand the poison that is being injected into them by these murders that call
themselves doctors. I will never be taking my children anywhere near a doctor ever
again. Even if my child is sick because those doctors would probably kill them off
faster by injecting something into them. Its probably for the best that we all just
stay away from doctors, especially our helpless children.
First they claim vaccines help to get money and then our children start to die
off. Whats next? They probably will start killing us adults off as well until only they
are alive and have all the money in the world from deceiving us! We must put a stop
to these people before they steal all our money, take over the world, and kill us! I
am pretty sure everyone will agree with you because you are such an amazing
person and took all that time to prove and show us all how harmful vaccines are to
us. With a great personality like you have, who wouldnt agree with you? Once
everyone is against those doctors they will have to agree with us and stop poisoning
us since everyone will be against them they will soon agree with us all. And then
finally we will put an end to this terrible disaster called vaccines.
Thank you for opening my eyes and helping me see how cruel this world can
be when all that people want is money. I appreciate your concern for all the little
innocent children all around the world that can be the doctors next victims. I will
definitely grow and learn from this lesson that you have so selflessly took the time
to teach us all.

-Kaelind Orton

My Real Response:

Dear Jocey,

I read your letter and I have to say that I disagree with this argument
because wouldnt it be smarter to give infants and those with weaker and/or not yet
fully developed immune systems extra help to fight off infections, bacteria,
diseases, and other sicknesses? Whereas adults have stronger immune systems and
their bodies dont need as much help fighting off sickness as infants and young
children do on their own. I feel like it's important for everyone to receive vaccines to
help not only themselves but also those around them, especially young children and
babies. I believe that thats why its even more important to have adults vaccinated
so that they dont spread the germs and sicknesses to their babies or babies around
them.
Vaccines are important. They help us fight of sicknesses and diseases that
are dangerous and can be deadly. Why else would we get vaccines? If they were
more harmful than helpful doctors would stop giving us them and they would no
longer be required. Who wouldnt want a little extra help fighting off and preventing
a sickness and disease? Because of vaccinations diseases are not as common and
practically disappearing. Without them disease and sickness would break out
throughout the U.S. and spread throughout the world.
I also think that comparing medicine and how many people are/were sick now
to back in the day is irrelevant. Modern medicine has come a very long way since it
was back then. It is much more useful and helpful and there are so many more
medicines and vaccines for each sickness and disease. We understand more
diseases now and are more fully educated in making medicine and/or vaccines that
can help prevent and heal us from anything that we may catch. Doctors make more
and more discoveries in how to improve modern medicine every day. We also take
better care of ourselves and our babies way better than we used to. We have better
and stronger immune systems because we eat better, take better care of ourselves
and have better living conditions. You cannot compare two very different living
conditions and vaccinations with each other. Saying that vaccines are bad for you is
like saying that you dont need to wear a seat belt in the car because it only hurts or
annoys you and doesnt protect you at all. This however we know is ridiculous and
seat belts are very important and can help prevent bad injuries and even
sometimes death. Just like seat belts are important and can protect us from harm,
vaccines do the very same thing within us, helping to prevent and protect our
bodies from sicknesses and diseases that may come our way. Vaccines are very

important and we should all get them to help ourselves and those around us stay as
healthy as possible.

-Kaelind Orton

Reflection of My Response

Over all I think my argument is a very strong and a very good argument.
However I may have repeated myself a bit. My premises could have been stronger
and maybe I should have backed them up more like she did hers. But I believe that I
proved and showed my point very well and that the logic flowed as equally well. If I
had to critique my own argument however I would probably mostly critique it on
how I am bias towards vaccines, medicine, and doctors since I am going to become
a nurse myself. I should have also probably added something I have gone through
personally like how I have never gotten sick or a disease my entire life and I have
always been vaccinated. The same goes for my family and everyone else I know,
everyone has always gotten vaccinated and have never been sick with what the
vaccination is supposed to prevent. I could have also added that if possible doctors
should make vaccinations for every sickness even sicknesses as little as the
common cold. If we could prevent such sicknesses than all those vaccinated would
never be sick. Sickness and diseases would cease to exist. It also depends on how
well we take care of ourselves, simply getting a shot and then not taking very good
care of yourself and then blaming the vaccine when you get sick isnt correct and
not taking care of yourself isnt going to do you much good. Once you get
vaccinated you should still try and be clean and healthy like eating healthy, washing
your hands, etc., and working out and getting good amounts of sleep. Doing so will
help decrease your chances of getting sick. If we all took good care of ourselves and
were vaccinated with flu shots, etc. I believe all these breakouts of sicknesses would
not be as a big of a problem as they are today.

Identification/Explanation of Fallacies

In my response with fallacies I used in the first paragraph the appeal to

ignorance fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that something must be
right because it cannot be proven wrong. In this fallacy the burden of proof is
misplaced. I used this fallacy by simply stating that her argument must be true
because she used examples from the past and since no one can prove that what
she said happened in the past didnt really happen then therefore it must be true,
meaning her argument must be true.
In the second paragraph I used the strawman fallacy. This fallacy happens
when someone misunderstands another persons argument as being something
much more simple or outrageous than it really even is. Using this fallacy I over
exaggerated with what Jocey is trying to say in her argument and made it sound as
if the doctors were trying to kill off the kids on purpose and they were getting
money off of it.
In the third paragraph I used the last three. The first one I used was the
slippery slope fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone say if we do not do
something to resolve a situation it will lead to numerous disastrous events that will
soon end up in something unimaginable and terrible. I used this fallacy by
continuing on with my strawman fallacy explaining that if we didnt stop the doctors
from killing off all the kids then they would eventually kill off all the kids and start to
kill off everyone else and soon have all the power and money in the world and be
the only people alive.
The next fallacy I used was the ad hominem-inverse fallacy this fallacy
happens when someone agrees with someone elses argument not having anything
to do with the argument itself but because they just like the person. I used this
fallacy by explaining that since Jocey is such an amazing, reliable, good person that
other people, not just me, would believe and agree with her.
For the fifth and final fallacy I used the appeal to popularity or bandwagon
fallacy. This fallacy is when a person tries to convince you that someone or
something is good not by giving good reasons but by saying that since everyone
else likes it, does it, etc. you should too. I used this fallacy by saying since everyone
will be against the doctors and them giving out vaccines the doctors themselves will
soon come to realize and agree that its bad and will stop and the problem will be
solved.

Short Argument Essay: Anti-Vaccination

June 9, 2012 by Joycey

Leave a Comment

Nowadays, there are many vaccines invented by different scientists. Vaccines are so
much in demand that even a simple flu has a certain vaccine. They have been
invented to protect us. Its main function is to build our immune system and allow it
to work against different kinds of bacteria. However instead of helping us fight
against infection and certain diseases, vaccines can be the main cause of infection
and diseases. Because of its live-attenuated organism, which means the pathogens
were partially killed to lessen the harmful effects, it can still trigger an infection
particularly with those who has a very weak immune system. Thus, vaccines should
not be given to young infants because of their high risk of acquiring an infection
that could eventually cause them long term effects. Rather, vaccinations should be
delayed until the infant is a toddler (18 months to 3 years), and he has fully
stabilized his immune system.
Vaccines started since the ancient times. However, none was being recorded during
that time. A practicing naturopath, osteopath and accupuncturist Leon Chaitow
claim in his book Vaccination and Immunization that the first recorded vaccine was
invented by Edward Jenner, who is the father of immunology. He developed the first
vaccine, which is the smallpox vaccine, by exposing the person to the cowpox
bacteria. Jenner discovered that the body could develop its own protection from the
disease once it is exposed to the little amount of the microorganism. This discovery
became very popular that it had every newborn infant vaccinated. However, this did
not last. There were outbreaks of smallpox that led to banning of this procedure (45). According to Henry Lindlahr, who founded the Lindlahr Sanitarium:
In the years 1870 -1 smallpox was rampant in Germany. Over one million persons
had the disease and 120,000 died. 96% of these had been vaccinated, and only 4%
had not been so protected. Most of the victims were vaccinated, once at least,
shortly before they rook the disease. Bismark, the Chancellor of Germany, sent an
address to the Governments of the various German states, in which it was stated
that numerous eczematous diseases were the result of the vaccination, and that
the hopes placed in the efficacy of the cowpox virus as preventive of smallpox
have proved entirely deceptive. (qtd. in Vaccination and Immunization 5)
Notwithstanding this prohibition, Louis Pasteur, who is a French chemist and father
of microbiology, roused again the methodology of immunization through the process
of vaccination. However, being a French chemist is not credible enough to rekindle a
once prohibited procedure on human beings. People who handle human bodies
should be more credible and understand the physiology of the human body better.
In further support of this, Archie Kalokerinos, an Australian physician, and Glen
Dettman, an Australian pathologist and medical writer, have described the
controversy:

Modern medicine is based on Pasteurs germ theory of disease- a specific organism

causes a specific disease and a specific vaccine gives protection. Shades of doubt
concerning the validity of this dogma were seen when we observed that some
Aboriginal children did not get protection and, in fact, died when vaccines were
administered. ( qtd. in Vaccination and Immunization 9)
History itself showed us that there were pitfalls in the invention of vaccines. People
died because of this invention particularly very young innocent children, who just
wanted to build their immune system from the deadly diseases, yet they ended up
in death. Perhaps, if vaccination was delayed until their immune systems were fully
matured they could have avoided death.
Aside from the history of vaccines are the accusations that vaccines can protect us
on a short term basis but will eventually show ill effects in the long term. A good
example of these are the vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella or MMR and polio
vaccines. MMR vaccines contain live microorganisms. According to one article in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, written by Bridget Kuahn, The MMR
vaccine can cause febrile seizures and this vaccine can cause inflammation in some
individuals with severe immune deficiencies (1427). This statement certainly
shows us that vaccines have some adverse effects in the brain, which the public
presume it as a cause of autism. Aside from this, is that polio vaccine can trigger
the disease itself. Despite of the total eradication of polio, there is no doubt that
polio can start the epidemic again. This is due to the fact that polio vaccine contains
killed or inactivated polio microorganisms. With this in mind, the virulence or the
strength of the microorganism to cause disease may be weak but it can still trigger
an infection especially if the immune system is immature or weak. A good example
of this is the article entitled, Vaccines: The Real Issues in Vaccine Safety, written by
Roberta Kwok, a freelance writer in Burlingame, California. In her article, she wrote
a situation about John Salamone who had his son vaccinated with polio vaccine and
eventually contracted the disease. She states, Salamone found out first-hand that
vaccines do have real, rare side effects when he saw his infant son, David, become
weak and unable to crawl shortly after receiving the oral polio vaccine in 1990. After
about two years of physical therapy and doctors visits, Salamone learned that
owing to a weakened immune system, David had contracted polio from the vaccine
(436-438). This situation shows that vaccines cannot protect us instead can cause
the disease particularly if the immune system is weak or immature. Having the
vaccine enter our body, regardless of it being killed or live microorganism will not
help us from protecting our immune system rather it can destroy us. Thus, it is
preferable to delay vaccines until the immune system is strongly mature to build
antibodies in defense to the killed and live microorganisms.
Moreover, there were famous personalities that led the campaign against vaccines.
Robert Kennedy, a famous personality in the US politics, believed that vaccines are
unsafe particularly vaccines for mumps, measles, and rubella or MMR due to its
component thimerosal. Thimerosal is a preservative for vaccines, which prevents
contamination, but thimerosal contains mercury that is neurotoxic or harmful for the
brain. He claimed, Government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide
the risks of thimerosal from the public. . . . A chilling case study of institutional

arrogance, power, and greed (qtd. in Vaccination Nation). Hence, it led him to
conclude that the children were poisoned by the pharmaceutical industry. Because
vaccines can possibly be neurotoxic, it raised new issues regarding vaccines causing
autism. David Kirby, a journalist who supported an autism activist organization,
claimed that [s]ome small subgroup of children might have a particular
vulnerability to vaccines and yet be missed by epidemiological studies (qtd. in
Vaccination Nation). Certainly, vaccines react to different kinds of bodies, and even
if there are different kinds of studies done, there is no doubt that the scope of these
studies will miss to cover all the consumers of vaccines. Thus, David Kirby stood his
ground with regards to thimerosal in vaccines causing autism. Possibly, children
who contracted autism and other long term illnesses were the ones who received
the vaccination at an early age. Therefore, it is advisable to wait until the childrens
vital organs are fully matured in order to handle very well the stress that the
microorganisms can cause.
Given all the arguments and issues raised, it is with full conviction that vaccines
should be delayed until when the infant is a toddler. This is due to the fact that
infants still have immature immune system and immature vital organs that could
place them at high risk of acquiring an infection that could eventually cause them
long term effects. Definitely, there are no parents who want their children to be
poisoned by a single vaccine or worst see their children battling over autism or
other long-term diseases. It is time to realize that this procedure is not safe and
should not be given to our young innocent children at a very early age.