3
$\begingroup$

Disclaimer: This question is NOT about challenging the safety or efficacy of vaccines. It is only asking for tips on providing credible references that may show harmful effects of vaccination, if any.

In my French class, we were asked to debate an issue in current events. My topic is vaccines in children or adults.

The challenging part is that I was assigned to argue against vaccination, and I have to back up my arguments with credible sources (not blogs) that are in French. Hopefully some of you could point me towards some links to articles or research papers in French.

Please avoid discussion on safety and efficacy of vaccines, including local and global policies on their use. I just need help with this topic for my French class

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
15
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Strangely, it seems that all of the debates about science aren't actually based in science at all. Vaccines, evolution, global warming, etc… $\endgroup$
    – canadianer
    May 28, 2015 at 3:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Maybe instead of a direct approach you can find arguments on why death by disease isn't so bad after all? But seriously, you're not going to find much in biology; you might be better off looking for non-scientific arguments. For example, some religions view disease as an expression of divine will and discourage medical treatment. $\endgroup$
    – augurar
    May 28, 2015 at 6:41
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it asks evidence for a wrong claim. There are no evidences yet for vaccines having bad effects. This question is also likely to attract anti-vaccination supporters who may claim this post as a support for their cause. $\endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    May 28, 2015 at 10:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @WYSIWYG - asking for references for any claim should be on-topic. Whether it has proven correct or incorrect. Stuff being considered correct now is proven incorrect tomorrow. Isn't that science? Moreover, the Wakefield study is an important study, as it stands example for total non-sense making it into one of the most respected journals worldwide. $\endgroup$
    – AliceD ♦
    May 28, 2015 at 10:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @aandreev and AliceD I am not questioning the scientific process. I am just saying that the way the question is worded, it is likely to get into controversies. We can always say no it doesn't happen like that as per the research till now and many of you have said that. Questions about specific formulations of drugs/vaccines are fine. This post needs to be protected if not closed and even then there may be people with enough rep who will come up with theories. We can't keep moderating it forever. $\endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    May 28, 2015 at 12:11

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
10
$\begingroup$

I wish you good luck, as 99.99% of the anecdotal claims out there that conclude vaccination is bad are based on unfounded rumors.

Note that much of the negative public opinion is based on a fraudulent (and retracted) paper by Wakefield in The Lancet (1998). Unfortunately for you, however, it is in English.

My French is a bit rusty, but if you go to Google Scholar and type in a search term like vaccination results in autism (les résultats de la vaccination dans l'autisme) or Wakefield vaccination autisme something might pop up in French that advocates against vaccination.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do wonder if Wakefield regrets the damage he has done. 5% of children under 7 in California are not vaccinated. Measles is a preventable condition! One I've never had to endure! $\endgroup$
    – Alec Teal
    May 28, 2015 at 14:39
4
$\begingroup$

The Wakefield study has collapsed as fraud, and there are no credible sources that make persuasive scientific arguments against being vaccinated in today's world -- not even in French.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ did you mean "in English"? $\endgroup$
    – March Ho
    May 28, 2015 at 7:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MarchHo I meant "in French". Apparently certain types of humor fail to translate well to the written word. $\endgroup$
    – Corvus
    May 28, 2015 at 14:16
4
$\begingroup$

You will not find good, credible sources arguing against vaccination. However, spewing nonsense is not necessary for winning your debate. You can collect good, credible sources arguing against specific vaccinations and use them to paint the opposing side as pro-vaccination zealots who unquestioningly want to stuff vaccines down everybody's veins.

Vaccines, like other treatments, have to be approved by health authorities, and therefore, the possible side effects are being studied in clinical trials. All you have to do is find a few cases where there side effects were a bit more severe than anticipated.

A good start for your research could therefore be publications about the risks of vaccination. On Google Scholar, "risques vaccination" brings up hits like Risk-Benefit assessment of hepatitis B vaccination in France (in French) that can give you a good basis for gathering material against vaccination.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AliceD: I reverted some of your changes to keep the original meaning of my post. If you feel the first paragraph remains problematic, I'd rather take it out completely. $\endgroup$
    – Jonas
    May 28, 2015 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ If you don't mind - I've taken it out. As it was previously, it could have lead to anti-vaccination people (ab)using your answer in favor of their stand point. OPs question is kind of problematic in that it may lead to endless debate $\endgroup$
    – AliceD ♦
    May 28, 2015 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ @AliceD: I tried another version that states why am trying to give the OP what he needs rather than what he seems to be asking for. $\endgroup$
    – Jonas
    May 28, 2015 at 15:40
-1
$\begingroup$

The only angle I can think of that isn't "Haha, I can't believe these people are allowed to vote" is that the enemy we know is better than the enemy we do not know.

I see no reason why the classic argument of selection pressure doesn't apply. (See Warfrin(spelling?) resistance in rats, the resistant rats required more vitamin-k, thus more time out in the sun, so in a warfrin free environment are at a disadvantage, but thrive in an environment with warfrin)

Unfortunately (fortunately) evidence doesn't really support that, in fact we have eradicated several diseases already entirely and nothing replaced them.

(Long comment sorry)

By the way! Do tell us some of the arguments that come up!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think the resistance angle helps much here, but if one wanted to pursue it, this question is relevant: biology.stackexchange.com/questions/30166/… $\endgroup$
    – Corvus
    May 28, 2015 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Corvus indeed, no doctor is going to say "Let them die!" (side note: "overprescription of antibiotics" is a hot topic in the UK because bacterial resistance is actually becoming a problem! However that's not vaccination) $\endgroup$
    – Alec Teal
    May 28, 2015 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ Also @Corvus thanks for that link, I was wondering while I was writing! $\endgroup$
    – Alec Teal
    May 28, 2015 at 14:49

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .