Decisions on Vaccination: In the Hands of the Few or the Many?

When it comes to a touchy topics, people have a natural tendency to avoid aggravating the issue. Is it really proper, however, to call something like inoculation touchy?
This and more are some of the issues tackled in the book On Immunity: An Inoculation by Eula Bliss.  It's a somewhat lyric nonfiction filled with anecdotes on her time as a mother with her first child and the minefield that is healthcare. By no means is it a straightforward and easy road.
Vaccination is one of the first major decisions people have to make on behalf of their children, and in the minds of many it can be the most vital one. By the author's own admission, tons upon tons of literature were poured over on her part during her pregnancy to help her make the decision when the time came. Literature by doctors is not the only advice she was given though. Society too, plays a great part in the decision, whether we like it or not.
Pressures from other mothers, news outlets, and family beliefs play deeply into the public health we expose these newborns to mere months after birth. Mixed knowledge and rumored science can deeply influence how everyone feels about the issue. Judgement falls down either way onto these poor mothers.  Hearsay is everywhere.
Despite admitting to hearing and believing some of these pressures, Eula Bliss still lays down the facts of the issue. She walks us through what's been debunked, namely the issue on vaccination causing autism, and where it all began, with milkmaids and cow farmers with a determination to keep their family safe. It's this instinct to keep your family safe that people really need to tune into.
The reality is that inoculation has been proven time and time again to be more beneficial than harmful. We need to start taking this mentality of protection and thinking beyond the family unit. Like Bliss states, herd immunity works. It's more than a theory, and when things like anti-vaccinations cause outbreaks of measles among children we need to step back and see the bigger picture. What of the immuno-compromised? The elderly who are at too much of a risk? We need to start caring for more than just the personal health when the lives of so many more are at stake with these little beginning of life choices. Like it or not, our lives are in the hands of the many when it comes to immunity, and many lives are in our hands.

REFERENCES:
Biss, E. (2015). On immunity: an inoculation. Minneapolis, MN: Greywolf.

What Does It Mean to be Natural?

Much of my life was spent in conservative Christian circles.  My first biology textbook adamantly denied the truth of evolution.  Abortions were abominations that must be outlawed.  Science was good only in that it was used to explore the Creator.  My passion and belief in science caused many debates in these communities, usually with me arguing for science and them arguing against.  One of these ongoing debates centered around vaccination.  Many in these groups were raised believing vaccines had many negative effects and should not be mandatory.  I was, and still am, fully vaccinated.  The arguments that vaccines caused autism or other debilitating diseases frequently were thrown at me.  In this way, I empathized with Eula Biss's sentiments expressed in her book On Immunity: An Inoculation.  These same people also stood opposed to genetically modified organisms, arguing it was unnatural.

This word was repeated throughout my life and was the subject of one chapter in Biss's book: natural.  It has become ingrained in our society that the word natural means better.  Fear-mongering occurs around "chemicals" in the water or in certain foods.  In reality, water is itself a chemical.  The entire world is made of chemicals, so to claim that chemicals are dangerous is foolish.  Biss quotes Wendall Berry to make an excellent point about this word.  " The more artificial a human environment becomes, the more the word 'natural' becomes a term of value." (Biss, 40-41).  The value becomes apparent, as foods marketed as natural charge higher prices.  The world has begun to crave naturality, a desire stemming from the artificial nature of society.  Should we strive to return to a natural world?

Many, myself included, believe that it should not.  The natural world is not a better or healthier alternative to an artificial one.  Diseases like polio, smallpox, measles, HIV, malaria, and Ebola are all natural entities.  Yet they have severe negative consequences on the human body, leading to death, paralysis, or permanent disfigurement.  Food becomes contaminated in its natural state, leading to even more debilitating natural diseases.

That is not to say that natural is bad.  There lie some legitimate concerns to artificiality.  As Biss illustrates, "Our technology both extends and endangers us.  Good or bad, it is part of us, and this is no more unnatural than it is natural." (Biss 50).  Danger lies in our artificial world, as it does in the natural world.  As with everything in life, it becomes a balancing act to find the middle ground between nature and artificial enhancement.

There has been an unhealthy obsession recently with the concept of nature.  Society is running from our technological advancements in the flawed belief that natural is better.  Perhaps my favorite Dr. Suess quote comes from his book Oh the Places You'll Go!  "So be sure when you step, Step with great care and great tact.  And remember that life's A Great Balancing Act."  While some skepticism of new advancements is healthy, fear of it is not.  With the embrace of this balance, humanity may one day be fully inoculated.

REFERENCES:

Biss, E. (2015). On immunity: an inoculation. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf.

Suess, Dr. (1990). Oh The Places You'll Go. New York, NY: Random House.

How we came to this: Knowledge, Stories and Human Nature

Vaccination is arguably one of the most innovative invention in the human history. Since the inception of the idea (the practice of variolation), which was traced back to 10^th century China, the method has been studied, tested, improved, and mass-produced to potentially save millions of lives. Refused to live under the mercy of nature, humanity took one more step to take control of our own bodies and save the least fortunate among us. The method is both beneficial and cost-effective, yet since ex-Biomedical researcher Andrew Wakefield released a paper implying the causation between the MMR vaccine and autism in children, there has been a growing community of parents questioning, delaying or refusing to vaccinate their children. To determine how we could solve this issue, we must understand how this idea came to spread.

According to the book On Immunity: An Inoculation by Eula Biss, the fear of inoculation is nothing new. Through out her overview of the history of inoculation, examining every aspect of it, from fiction and non-fiction literature, personal and societal viewpoints, humanity is portrayed to be fearful and ridiculous, to misunderstand nature, to be lost in their own ignorant of science. He was ingrained of both the image of a lower-class citizen and the act of inoculation. She was paranoid with the foreign government’s interference through vaccination campaign. And for plenty other reasons, they all choose not to vaccinate their children. But contradicting all those skepticism, the science is in and is clearly in favor of vaccination, so can they not weigh the risk of deadly diseases and the risk of mild fever reacting to the vaccine?

For one, science is, simply put: hard. The general population with a high-school diploma, will hopefully understand basic human physiology and vaccination. That is if they actually paid attention in Biology class, and was willing to spend 3 hours Googling “adaptive immunity”, NLR, PAMP, and NPC. If not, they will have to juggle with Scientific Mumbo Jumbo with the rest of the world, while thinking whether to inject their offspring with Smallpox and Measles. That’s where media came in with science for the laymen.  News and reported researches of dumbed down information give the generic man a simple understanding of the intricate working of nature. Then, he is free to ask for whoever to interpret that information. He could choose to ask a professional, to consult him if his children were able to take the vaccines. Or he could choose to ask a “professional”, to confirm his belief that this is unnatural, that Big Pharmas are lying, that his fear is justified. Humanity is, has and always will be fearful of what they don’t understand. Crooked opportunists like Andrew Wakefield and Robert Sears will be there, waiting to prey on concerned mothers for money, power and fame. In this day and age, they would only need wifi and Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing to broadcast their misinformation.

It’s not just the fact that science is dumbed down that matters, it’s also how it’s dumbed down. How we think is shaped by how we talk. And when we talk, we don’t just talk; we tell stories, visualizing worlds unknown to us. “Immunologists are forced to use unusual expressions in order to describe their observations.”(On Immunity, pg 56). They personify cells, tell story of how they memorize, how they recognize, read, eat and most importantly, fight. Mixed with a lack of knowledge about science, our brains would run haywire with imaginations. Images of “world-ending” bacteria and “evil” viruses freak us out, so we choose to use antibiotics for the mildest sinus infection, like using a sledge hammer to squash an ant, killing even the useful microbiome inside of us. Inoculation reminds us of Vampirism and invasion, or even a polution of our naturally “pure” bodies, so we’re scared senseless, choosing to trust our so-called instinct instead of scietific evidence.

The circle continues. And the world would come to question everything and understand nothing. Ignorant grows, disguising as skepticism while Measles breaks out all over America, and Polio Africa. To break the cycle, there are two ways:

First, if science is hard, then instead of making science less hard, we should make people smarter. Best case scenario: we can fuel students with curiosity and excitement to learn more about the world around and inside them. If such method is unsuccessful, some suggest we shouldn’t put useless knowledge into their brains, but we can teach them how to think critically and how to find information effectively. We do this right, and hopefully enough of the next generation will be scientifically illiterate and vaccinated to break through the herd immunity threshold, against both diseases and predatory influencers.

Second, we can change the narrative of science. Reframing the story of inoculation will help desensitize people to the idea of it. Inoculation shouldn’t symbolize pollution, but as an input to the immunity database to fight off the true invasion. Inoculation shouldn’t be described as impalement, but as something as usual as taking a pill. I believe overtime, inoculation will be treated as equal as other treatment. Till then, the media must portray vaccination in different lights.

Systematic educational problem is hard to solved, and my ego is nowhere nearly big enough for me to be sure of my position. Thus, I would like to retreat my arrogant opinions and respectfully let true  educators do their jobs.

REFERENCES:

Biss, E. (2015). On immunity: an inoculation. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf.

Inoculation: A Mother's Dilemma

Immunity—a tantalizing idea filled with ironies and unfulfilled promises. The prospect of the sheer power behind immunity is enough to drive any reasonable person insane with curiosity, however with the immense benefits comes a fatal flaw. Eula Biss, a new mother, begins her novel with enrapturing tales and gossip from worried mothers surrounding what seems too good to be true: inoculation. Many worry this promising immunity will leave their child suffering from its unknown fatal flaw and refuse to risk subjecting their child to vaccinations, however others still argue any chance at immunity is worthwhile. Eula Biss subjects her readers to fantasies and neighborhood gossip in order to convey the magnitude of a mother’s decision to inoculate her child.

                The most powerful comparison to represent a mother’s fear stems from the mythological tale of Achilles. Biss draws upon a mother’s fear and determination to provide for her child the best life she can in order to demonstrate the emotional significance behind blindly trusting recommendations to subject her child to a “magical serum” promising immunity. Everyone knows the time-old tale of Achilles, and how his immunity came with a fatal flaw that eventually cost him his life. However, Biss chooses to focus on the mother’s fears and motivations more so than the eventual outcome to explain why she may be motivated to opt for risky investments—such as vaccinations in this case. A mother will do everything in her power to prevent fate from overpowering work ethic; that being said, like Achilles’ mother dunked him in the River Styx, mothers across the globe take the same plunge and inoculate their children.

                Even more, Eula Biss supplies countless gossip and real worries from her neighbors thus proving how hesitant and divided mothers were on these new inoculations. They must begin to weigh the positives and the negatives if they wish to fully understand what benefits and consequences come with this promised “immunity.” So many mothers experienced the horrific side effects of inoculation, and without seeing the long-term outcome, it is difficult to subject their child to future inoculations since the risk did not pay off. How were they to know if the vaccinations truly provided immunity rather than cause physical distress to their children as mentioned? While scientific research has supported inoculation as more studies have surfaced with proven immunity and little consequences, mothers pioneering and subjecting their children were faced with a dark tunnel that may or may not have a light at the end of it.

                Through her descriptive tales and effective comparisons, Biss conveys to the general public the emotional turmoil mothers went through before diving into inoculation. Vaccinations were said to be beneficial, but how could they trust this serum promising something too good to be true while living with the terrible side effects? Inoculation now appears to be an immediate decision—something tried and proven to offer immunity with little side effects—however mothers still worry for their young and still are weary towards anything promising such a tantalizing offer. They must question whether they really can trust the research now and are willing to offer their child armor against fate, or decide that the potential of a fatal flaw outweighs any benefits.

On Immunity: A Mother's Perspective

When first purchasing the book “On Immunity: An Inoculation” by Eula Biss, even just looking at the cover and judging by the title, I was fully expecting an in-depth, complicated book about immunity, its history, and present standings. While I braced for a wide variety of medical terms to be thrown at me or detailed descriptions of the chronicles of immunity through time, I was excited to start this book because immunology is my favorite medical topic. However, the simplicity of the book took me by surprise. Within the first chapter, Biss introduces her book with mythical stories she was told as a young girl that related to immunity. The following chapters consist of Biss’s personal experience with how controversies of immunity affected her life choices and perspectives, with information about immunity continually being weaved in.

Although the book is different from what I initially expected, Biss brings up great points about immunity, including the discrepancy of information to the general patient, media, and medical professionals. For example, she talks about the war of vaccinations: those who are for it and those who are against it, discussing the effect of herd immunity and the beliefs of some people regarding the safety/effectiveness of vaccines.

           

I specifically can relate to the discord the controversies of vaccinations can produce, as my own family has experienced tension regarding the topic. Two members of my family, each with different backgrounds but both with a larger than average number of young kids, disagree about getting vaccines, causing the topic to never dared be uttered during family get-togethers. So Biss’s explanation of the dispute on vaccines is personally relevant.

Biss brings up great points regarding arguments within modern medicine, like the stress she feels when trying to make informed decisions for herself and her child, but I dislike the fact that this book is told through the eyes of a mother struggling through the tangles of medicine. Sure, it is more relatable to the reader, and empathy can be felt as one can witness the pressures of being a mother, but personally, I feel as though the book would be much more appealing if it was written differently. She talks about her and her father’s blood type (O-negative, what “giving” people), her consulting with other mothers (like when she makes the decision to get her son vaccinated for H1N1), and throws more useless tid-bits in here and there, making the book seem scattered and disconnected, like “The magazines I paged through in my midwife’s waiting room when I was pregnant with my son ran advertisements for disturbing little sculptures that could be made from ultrasound images of my developing fetus” (Biss, 105). Does the reader really need to know fragments like that? No, I wish she would take a step back and be a little more concise with her writing and focus the book more. She has great sections of information where I have actually learned a lot, but her writing style could be more relevant/concise.

Biss, E. (2015). On immunity: an inoculation. Minneapolis, MN: Greywolf.

An Extension of Vampirism

In Eula Biss's On Immunity: An Inoculation, several metaphors are used to discuss the fear associated with vaccines. Some of the main themes include the body waging war on disease and doctors being paternal figures trying to protect the general populace from disease.

One of the lesser discussed metaphors from On Immunity involves vampirism. In the book, Eric Nuzum is quoted as saying "If you want to understand any moment in time, or any cultural moment, just look at their vampires." This concept is demonstrated exceptionally well by Victorian vampires. In Victorian times, one of the most taboo subjects was sex and sexuality. Victorian vampires were often cold but highly sexual creatures using physical attraction to lure their victims to their doom. Modern vampires are much more focused on morality. They are conflicted about their need to consume human blood. They try to forego preying on humans often substituting human blood with animal blood. Our vampires are less focused on sexuality and much more focused with power. They use their personal will power to overcome their need for blood in order to live in close proximity with humans. This concept demonstrates the modern infatuation with power. Our current society is focused around status symbols. The clothes you wear, the car you drive, your title at work are all indicators to the amount of power you have over other people in the world.

In On Immunity, Biss's father suggests another view of vampires in which the vampire serves not as a metaphor for sexuality or power but one for medicine. "Medicine sucks the blood out of people in a lot of ways" he states. This statement refers to the exorbitant prices of almost any medical procedure as well as the amount of time and stress involved. Going through a surgery or major illness is draining not only physically but emotionally and economically also. It is just as draining to watch a loved one go through such an illness or surgery. The forced hold major medicine imposes on a person's life too often leaves them struggling after it passes. This vampirism on a person's life is a major characteristic of modern medicine. Every illness, every procedure is a process that claims a hold on one's life until it has been completed. Medicine continues to complicate itself extending its predatory hold on the life of each patient.

References
Biss, Eula. On Immunity: An Inoculation. Gray Wolf Press: Minneapolis, 2014. Print.

Monstrous Vaccinations?

           

            When I pictured vaccines, the image of Dracula had never come to mind, that is until I started reading “On Immunity.”  In a particularly memorable section of text, Biss painted a striking comparison between the vampire count and immunization.  She brought to the forefront both the invasiveness of a shot and the widespread public fear.  Biss poses the question, “Do we believe vaccination to be more monstrous than disease?” (Biss, p. 29).   I find that vaccinations are much more helpful than they are hurtful.  Although there are sometimes negative outcomes from vaccinations, I would still argue in support of them. 

For all their controversy, I continue to see the value in vaccines.  For clinical, I completed a series of vaccinations in order to work in the hospital. These vaccinations were required to keep nursing students and their patients safe from spreading diseases.  Although I support taking precautions against the spread of diseases in a sensitive medical environment, I do feel that some of the vaccines required are either outdated or unnecessary. For instance, there are many people who struggle with getting the flu shot due to a naturally weak immune system resulting in unwanted sickness.  Aside from this issue, the flu shot is still the most recommended form of precaution during the flu season.  “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today reported that flu vaccination last season prevented an estimated 7.2 million flu-associated illnesses and 90,000 flu hospitalizations,” (CDC).  However, only 40% of the public receive an annual flu shot.

When I was in grade school, the swine flu epidemic made millions of people panic about the severity of the disease.  As a result, my school required students to receive the vaccination unless exempted by a doctor’s note.  Students also had to choose whether to get a shot or a nasal spray vaccine.  There was controversy surrounding which form of the vaccine to get because there were reports of people getting swine flu from these vaccinations.  People were also skeptical of the nasal spray because the active virus was in it, but others believed that would be the better choice.  In the end, almost the entire school, even the families against vaccinations chose immunity over swine flu.

As discussed in “On Immunity," people are constantly making the decision whether or not to vaccinate themselves and their children. The narrator contemplated vaccinating because of the varying reports and theories surrounding them.  One theory claimed that vaccinations were thought to be reserved for “poor and low-income people.”  As a result of this stereotype, some wealthier families don’t believe that they need to vaccinate.  This stereotype is simply invalid. We know that diseases can be spread in a variety of ways, among all social classes.  However, it’s an example of why people are skeptical of vaccinating if they are well-off.  Due to how easily diseases can spread and the severity of infectious diseases, I believe that avoiding vaccinations and running the risk of acquiring a disease is much more dangerous than a simple injection designed to keep people healthy.

Biss, E. (2015). On immunity: An inoculation. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf.

Influenza (Flu). (2016, March 14). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/nivw-fewer-vaccinated.htm