The issue of the effectiveness of vaccines has been a long standing debate. Whether vaccines have indeed saved humanity countless times or has been the medium through which companies such as AstraZeneca can instill disease and thus fear unto humans for profit is a controversial topic. The one contributor of society that one would find astonishing to find opposing vaccines is doctors. One such doctor that found, in his experience, vaccines to be ineffective and arguably harmful is Dr. Harold Moskowitz.
In a detailed argument published in 1983 in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, Moskowitz uses detailed scientific evidence and personal anecdotes of cases he has handled to present his case on the ineffectiveness of vaccines. Moskowitz’s use of an amalgamation of substantial scientific evidence and personal anecdotes works to successfully reach the rational, ethical and emotional aspects of its readers in an effort to present an understandable argument of substance against the effectiveness of vaccines and its use on humanity.
Moskowitz uses a plethora of statistics to construct the basis of his argument thus appealing to the logical minds of those he wishes to present his argument to. Moskowitz argues first upon the case of whooping cough, which still affects infants. He argues that “whooping cough had already begun to decline precipitously long before the pertussis vaccine was introduced. ” Moskowitz quotes renowned epidemiologist C. C Dauer who in as early as 1943 had stated that if mortality from pertussis continues to decline as it has, it would nearly impossible to show statistically that immunization has any effect in reducing and preventing mortality from whooping cough. Moskowitz states that not only pertussis, but this observation hold true for other diseases such as diphtheria and tetanus that began to disappear towards the end of the nineteenth century in direct correlation to improvements in public health and sanitation, long before modern day medical measures were introduced to eradicate them.
Moskowitz refers to a British outbreak of whooping cough in which “even fully-immunized children contracted the disease in large numbers, and their rates of serious complications and death were not reduced significantly. ” While in 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the UCLA campus, among a population that was supposedly 91% immune. Moskowitz concludes, stating that the vaccine is a trick of sorts that is used to create a false sense of security and health where none exists. (Moskowitz) Moskowitz’s use of statistical data adds basis to his argument.
Moskowitz starts successfully with presenting the most pertinent data he possibly can to solidify his argument. The presentation of such data is done in such a linear order that the abstract idea that immunizations as being ineffective becomes a bit easier to understand given the evidence. This use of statistics using the most common diseases such as pertussis and tetanus, all of which the masses have been immunized against, has one questioning the effectiveness of vaccinations. As Moskowitz has indicated, most of these common diseases were on a decline when public health and sanitation were on a rise.
As with all events, correlation does not mean causation however, it seems as if this same mistake has been done in the case of vaccinations. Without this use of substantial statistical data, Moskowitz’s argument would fail to have logical and rational appeal, thus fail to establish a sound argument and detract from a massive aspect of his argument. Anecdotal evidence is used next by Moskowitz to create emotional appeal to contrast the scientific findings he has presented previously. Moskowitz uses two noteworthy cases to support his argument.
Moskowitz describes his first case as an 8 month old girl. She was brought to Moskowitz after her third episode. The episodes would last 48 hours, with intense fevers reaching 105 degrees Fahrenheit, and were brief in nature. The mother soon realized that the child had her first episode one month after her third DPT vaccine, and had similar fevers and said episodes immediately after each injection. Based on that recollection, Moskowitz gave the child a single oral dose of an oral homeopathic DPT vaccine to counteract the previous vaccines ill effects.
Soon after that the child’s episodes had subsided and has remained healthy since. The second case is that of a 9-month old girl who had fevers exceeding 105 degrees Fahrenheit. She had two episodes, however at irregular intervals. Her parents had been irresolute about immunizations and had given the child only one dose of the DPT vaccine and her first episode began a few weeks afterwards. Moskowitz gave her a blood test and found toxic granulations attached to the cells crucial for a healthy immune system such as lymphocytes and monocytes.
It was confirmed that pertussis was what the child had and was given a single dose of a homeopathic DPT, again to counteract the previous vaccine, and the fever subsided abruptly and the girl remained healthy since. Moskowitz ends by stating that vaccines “drives disease deeper… [causing] us to harbor it chronically instead… [resulting in] our responses to it becoming progressively weaker [showing] less of a tendency to heal. ” (Moskowitz) Moskowitz strengthens his argument with this use of anecdotal data.
His specific use of children in the anecdotes is especially crucial in creating emotional appeal in his argument. This works in Moskowitz’s argument, to create a sense of empathy for the implications that Moskowitz is arguing as children are perceived as innocent and vulnerable. It is illogical to discredit the aftermath of both children being given a homeopathic DPT vaccine as having taken the episodes away by chance, when there seems to be strong evidence that the original DPT vaccine was the cause of the episodes.
Again, his choice to include anecdotes mainly on children works in the favor of creating emotional appeal in an argument heavily logical and rational in nature. Moskowitz included these anecdotes to relay the emotional toil that comes from not only routine vaccinations, but the financial and physical toil taken on the families themselves as well. Moskowitz’s concluding statement solidifies this emotional appeal as he states that the nature of vaccines is to drive the disease in further and thus causing the body to have difficulty recuperating.
This comment coupled with the descriptions of the two cases that Moskowitz illustrates the nature of disease and illness, however present the implication that humankind may be giving illnesses to their loved ones. Moskowitz’s explicit concluding statements work to present the ethical basis of his argument. Moskowitz argues “far from producing a genuine immunity, then, [his] suspicion and [his] fear is that vaccines act by interfering with an even suppressing the immune response as a whole, in much the same way that radiation and chemotherapy do. Since routine vaccinations introduce live viruses and antigenic material into the bloodstream, it is not difficult to predict that a substantial harvest of auto-immune diseases will result. These latent viruses that are within the body become biological “time bombs” set to explode at an undetermined time. Moskowitz then argues that the death rate from diseases included in routine immunizations is low and the risk of complications as well. He proposes instead that humans contract illness naturally.
The benefit, he argues, from the children that recover from it naturally, is that future generations will evolve to have immunity from such diseases. He argues that even if the vaccine could show that it lowers the risk of death, it does not justify the vast amount of diseases that are being harbored and injected into our systems. He states that he is “deeply troubled by the atmosphere… whereby vaccines are forcibly imposed on the public in the absence of any public health emergency, often against their will and serious discussion of them is ridiculed, and ignored by the medical authorities. He presents an excerpt by the American Cancer Society which states “Immunization programs… may actually be seeding humans with RNA from photo viruses. ” This is essentially molecules in search of diseases, when activated under proper conditions could cause diseases such as… rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, and cancer. ”
Moskowitz states that nobody would “entertain the idea that if we could somehow eliminate, one by one… all the known diseases of mankind we would be any healthier for it or that other quite possibly… serious diseases would not arise and quickly take their place. Moskowitz ends his argument by referring to it as his religion and stating “That is my religion; and while I would willingly share it, I would not force it on anyone. ” (Moskowitz) Albeit being heavy in logical appeal, Moskowitz’s use of ethical appeal is largely successful. His approach of explaining the reality of how immunizations work in the body transitions into placing the blame upon humankind itself. This explicit discussion on his part of addressing the lack of questioning and undeniable belief in medical authority, makes one question why they find themselves going in for their routine vaccinations.
Especially so, when they have not done their research on the side effects nor when there is an outbreak of disease. Moskowitz uses such vivacious ethical implications, such as his statement of medical authorities forcing routine immunizations, in an effort to create an appeal that is an amalgamation of logical and emotional appeal to awaken humankind to the immunizations that they blindly believe in. He makes an undeniable point that immunizations have never been fully scrutinized for its implications upon the body compared to over the counter drugs.
The idea that humankind has been oblivious and willingly allowing medical companies to inject their newborns and themselves with viruses while not educating themselves, is the largest ethical implication. Moskowitz also makes the case for natural exposure to disease. Instead of injecting the active viruses and falling sick, the population would naturally contract disease, the immune system eradicates the virus and becomes stronger. In the manmade progression, the virus mutates into what Moskowitz calls a latent-virus, feeding off the tissue and being immune to all drugs that seek to eradicate it, causing illnesses such as cancer.
Without this explicit use of ethical appeal, not only would Moskowitz’s argument lose ethical appeal, it would fail to establish an undeniable connection of reality to those considering the validity of his argument. Towards the finale of argument one is better able to understand Moskowitz’s use of scientific evidence and personal anecdotes in a medium through which to present an argument against the effectiveness of vaccines and its use on humanity. Not only does the Moskowitz manage to keep one’s attention through this technique, he also deve strong argument that consists of logical, emotional and ethical appeal.
The simple act of using scientific data and anecdotes works to present Moskowitz’s perspective, creating a better understanding of his argument and the direct connection it has to the lives of the individuals considering it. Moskowitz’s use of an amalgamation of substantial scientific evidence and personal anecdotes works to successfully reach the rational, ethical and emotional aspects of its readers in an effort to present an understandable argument of substance against the effectiveness of vaccines and its use on humanity.