How Wakefield spoke at an US anti-vaccine conference in the early 2000s (transcribed from audiotape sample no longer on web).
the upside of infection, yes the upside of infection, we are survivors of infection, we are here not in spite of infection, but because of infection. Our immune system has been conditioned over millions and millions of years by infection, and if we alter the way in which infection is delivered to our systems we must expect that by changing the ecosystem, there will be a downside, there will be attrition, we will render some children damaged.
That was the whole post.
Andrew Wakefield appears to have an interesting interpretation of evolution.
If we have survived thrived because of an improved intelligence, then we should ignore that and try to survive on the merits of a less capable naturally acquired immunity. Another way of describing natural immunity is those who do not die from an illness that confers immunity.
If we accept that logic, maybe we should stop wearing clothing. . . . we must expect that by changing the ecosystem, there will be a downside, there will be attrition, we will render some children damaged.
If we accept that logic, maybe we should stop taking medicine. . . . we must expect that by changing the ecosystem, there will be a downside, there will be attrition, we will render some children damaged.
If we accept that logic, maybe we should stop using technology. . . . we must expect that by changing the ecosystem, there will be a downside, there will be attrition, we will render some children damaged.
If we accept that logic, maybe we should stop using research. . . . we must expect that by changing the ecosystem, there will be a downside, there will be attrition, we will render some children damaged.
If we accept that logic, maybe we should stop using money. What? I must be taking this logic thing a bit too far. Andrew Wakefield would never give up those things he feels he has a natural right to – or maybe that he earned with his dishonesty and irresponsibility.
An alternative is to understand that the reason we appear to be the dominant species on the planet. We use our intelligence to modify our environments.
We wear clothing that allows us to live almost anywhere we desire. Does clothing work against evolution? That depends on whether we think that intelligence is evolutionary.
We take medicine that allows us to live longer, healthier lives than would be possible without medicine. Does medicine work against evolution? That depends on whether we think that intelligence is evolutionary.
We use technology that also allows us to live longer, healthier lives. Does technology work against evolution? That also depends on whether we think that intelligence is evolutionary.
We also use research that allows us to live longer, healthier lives. Does research work against evolution? That similarly depends on whether we think that intelligence is evolutionary.
Certainly arguments can be made that individuals, or even groups of people should not survive, because they pass on genes that decrease the likelihood of the species surviving. Yet, with our intelligence, we make it possible for them to pass on their genes. We defeat evolution.
However, the same could be said for just about any other evolutionary change. There is advantage and disadvantage. What evolution does is select for changes that overall increase the chances of survival of the species in that particular environment. Individuals, or even small groups, do not prevent that.
If we believe that research is contrary to the survival of humans, then maybe we should make Andrew Wakefield do some honest physical labor, instead of taking advantage of his evolutionary superiors.
If we believe that taking care of our fellow human beings is an evolutionary flaw, then we agree with Andrew Wakefield. Screw the kids! It’s their own fault they died. Protecting children is wrong.
I do not agree with Andrew Wakefield.
I think that intelligence is important.
.
Subscribe to RogueMedic.com