VALIDITY TASK- LEVEL 2 BIO 2.2
Rosalind Walker
Vaccine Dangers
Vaccine Dangers was written by Ken Adachi, an extreme anti-vaccination advocate and editor of “educate-yourself.org", a blog on which he expresses his opinion on a number of topics from how to treat parasites, to aliens invading the world. He has no known credentials or reliability to his name. The article was written on October 6th 2013 and updated July 22nd 2015. He obviously wants to gain popularity and spread his “knowledge” among like-minded people, or to convince others to agree with his logic. Ken Adachi is a potential pseudonym for a Canadian writer who goes by the same name by died a number of decades ago. This makes his cases even less believable and him as a source of information far more unreliable. His opinions are severely biased as he has a completely one-sided opinion on vaccination and provides no real scientific evidence to support his arguments. He does have a vested interest as his argument will benefit himself for both blog traffic and because the blog is about alternate medicines. If people are convinced by this article, they are more likely to invest in alternate forms of medicinal aid, which will benefit him. This tells us he has a hidden agenda in writing the piece and makes him less of a reliable source.
His target audience is parents trying to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children. He expresses, “Don’t allow your child to go on the chopping block for these Liars and their profit margins.” He expresses the hidden “dangers” of immunisation and tries to convince his audience that vaccination is a scam and instead damaging to a child’s health rather than helping the child. The article is likely to make the parents question the legitimacy of vaccination and may even convince them not to vaccinate their children. His article is dramatic and over exaggerated but could be believable to someone how has an incomplete understanding of vaccinating their children. The article is likely to have an impact on the general public due to its inflated nature. The run-on effect of this could be that parents decide not to vaccinate their children, thus putting other children in danger of becoming ill. Because his target audience is indecisive parents, his article is likely to sway the opinions of some.
Adachi’s article is supposedly backed up by scientific research by Dr Andrew Moulden. Moulden has written a book titled, “Dr Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm”. When he was alive, Moulden would make videos trying to convince the public of the “bodily harm” of vaccination. Moulden, who specialises in pseudoscience claimed several academic degrees, of which a medical degree is included however was not licensed to practice medicine and even has a restraining order to keep him away from major medical conferences. A quote from him is, “Science can never replace common sense and your own powers of direct observations”. He relies completely on anecdotal evidence and refuses to submit any of his biological ideas to any form of scrutiny, proving that is work is more a case of pseudoscience than anything other . Moulden, who has since passed away, believed that “vaccines create blockage and ‘sludging’ of blood flow”. Vaccination is the process of introducing a small, weaker dosage of an illness to the body. This allows the body to produce antibodies to attack the specific antigens of the new virus before the pathogen takes over the immune system and the individual becomes unwell. This means, upon a second, more serious infection, the immune system will be able to deal with it with ease and efficiency as it already has a learnt response towards the virus and does not have to waste time trying to create antibodies. This process has no correlation to blood flow in the body, meaning it is impossible for the vaccination to create blockage or “sludge” to the flow of blood through the body. Vaccinations are usually always harmless to the body and are instead beneficial to the individual. Rare cases where the body does not react well to the vaccination and instead becomes ill instead of getting better are scarce and infrequent. However, Adachi refers to a documentary produced by “investigative film maker Gary Null” who claims that one in fifty children in the USA is autistic. This is also a form of incorrect scientific knowledge as the US government estimates that one in sixty-eight are legitimately autistic. This shows that Adachi is twisting evidence to suit his arguments, so his argument on the subject is invalid. Moulden’s “biological evidence” lacks in correct or legitimate scientific knowledge or research. Moulden is known for his radicalised approach to vaccination which has rubbed off on the author of “Vaccine Dangers”, Ken Adachi. Adachi’s complete reliance on only one source shows that his argument is one-sided and unreliable. The scientific evidence provided by Adachi is insignificant and inaccurate. His opinion seems heavily biased and incorrect in terms of scientific proofs.
Adachi claims, in his article that “The LIES and misinformation about vaccine benefits from the pharmaceutical…”. This direct and exaggerated approach to the issue at hand could be convincing to his audience. This aspect of information could have serious repercussions on his audience as it may convince them that the pharmaceutical industry is in fact trying to gain problem. This will influence their decision making and is likely to convince them that vaccinating their children is not going to benefit their child at all. However, most vaccinations are free for children under the age of 18 in New Zealand especially so many need to realise that instead of it being a “scam”, it is a legitimate medical aid for citizens which is more likely to benefit their child than not. However, Adachi makes a convincing point, claiming the industry is full of “Liars and their profit margins”. This could have an impact on the parents that the article is targeting as they are likely to be uninformed and indecisive. Little do they know that coming to this source will provide them with misinformation and extreme bias. The article, although seemingly unbelievable, is also persuasive and convincing and could have an impact on the opinions of Adachi’s audience. His language is blunt and he tells his version of the truth which could be appealing to some readers and would make his argument more believable. However, using a small amount of research and general knowledge, it is evident that the article is incorrect and extremely one-sided. He calls himself one of a group of “legitimate critics”, who are supposedly telling the truth about vaccination, “regardless of academic or professional credentials” of which are very few.
The inaccuracy of this article could have an impact on the public due to its exaggerated and incorrect scientific evidence, however as it is published on a blog on the internet, it is unlikely to gather a huge amount of publicity. It will have an effect on a small group of individuals but, fortunately, is unlikely to reach an extensive audience. However, the impact of the incorrect, “bad” science in the text is that it could be believable and cause some parents to no longer support legitimate medical ideologies, such as immunising their children. This is likely to have not only significant long-term health issues with their children, but also the children around their own. Not vaccinating a child is not only putting the child at risk but also all others that surround him or her. The incorrect scientific information provided in the article affects not only the reader, but many others around them. The one-sided opinion given by the author, Ken Adachi, is both biased and inaccurate. The article has proven itself to be an illegitimate and invalid source of information, offering only the opinion of one individual and providing incorrect and bad scientific research.