The Rallying of the Green
June 4, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Autism Organizations, Cause, Environment, Family, Health, Language, Literature, Metaphor, New Jersey, Parenting, Poetry, Politics, Vaccines
A couple of years while teaching this poem to an English Literature 101 class at a mid-sized university in New Jersey (it’s not where I teach now), I asked my class what “green” signifies. While we live in New Jersey, I grew up in California (think Berkeley not Los Angeles) and — having started to recycle in the 4th grade, lived through a couple of droughts and a gas shortage, and developed a preference for whole grains in elementary school — “green” to me means nature, plants, leaves, grass, stuff that grows in the ground naturally.
So I was honestly crestfallen when several students answered my question about “the meaning of green” with one word:
Money. At the mention of nature — trees etc. — they shrugged. (I sighed.)
So you’d perhaps think that I’d feel some relief towards the notion of “greening our vaccines,” the name of the rally today, June 4th, in Washington, D.C., with Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, described as a “celeb couple” leading the rally “to raise awareness about autism”—I thought this was a rally about vaccines?
I’m not too clear about what “green vaccines” are but—-based on phrases like “how green is my dream kitchen” and (more generally) “how to go green,” “green thinking” and, too, the greening of the automobile — it would seem that “green vaccines” would be something like “environmentally safe vaccines.” As in non-toxic, non-mercury/thimerosal/non-anything-dangerous containing vaccines of the sort touted by those who call themselves not “antivaxxers” but “pro-vaccine-safety”-ists.
But this “green vaccine thing” is but another instance of rebranding, as in the various different names that Evidence of Harm author David Kirby regularly engages in, to find new biological ways of describing “autism.” Orac has taken a good look about the green- and natural-ness of vaccines (and been called an “idiot” in the very first comment). He also offers a small gallery of signs (”Vaccines = Autism EvidenceofHarm.org“), as well as a selection of signs from the “Power of Truth” rally three years ago.
Starting from Orac’s look at both signage and slogans (and semantics), a few more thoughts on the rallying of the green:
Somwhere in the not too distant past, those who were the “antivaxxers” or “anti-vaccine advocates” started to chararacterize themselves as “pro-vaccine-safety advocates.” As Mike Stanton notes, the organizers of the Green Our Vaccines rally sound like their old anti-vaccine selves. But “pro” has positive overtones: Better to be for something and who can object to making things—vaccines—safe? (In the abortion debate, it’s “pro-choice” and “pro-life”—-who wants to be “anti-life” or “anti-choice”?)
Regarding the “green” theme, very prominently displayed on the logo for the rally. The associations of green—aside from my “nature” one and the “money” response of my former students—also include, of course, green stop lights which mean “go.” The notion of green vaccines suggests that those who espouse these are moving forward and being progressive and pro-active. Certainly “green our vaccines” has a much friendlier ring to it than “mercury poisoning” (suggestive of being poisoned by something burning and volatile); the phrase also suggests that, just as we are greening kitchens, cleaning products, clothing, cars, out very way so thinking, etc., so is there a movement to do so for vaccines.
I’m not sure today’s rally is going to bring more clarity to all of this. I’ve been reading a book, Do Vaccines Cause That?: A Guide For Evaluating Vaccine Safety Concerns by Martin Myers, M.D and Diego Pineda, M.S. that has been helpful in providing some basic clarifications about the science and history behind vaccines and about what is in vaccines. One example is the definitions of “side effect” and “adverse effect” (p. 25). These are key terms in discussions about vaccines and autism; proponents of the hypothesis that vaccines or something in vaccines can be linked to autism hone in on such unintended effects as one of the dangers of vaccines. (This article contains one such story.) However, as Dr. Myers and Pineda write:
Side effect (or Side reaction) are symptoms and signs that occur either locally—such as pain or redness at the injection site—or in other parts of the body—such as headache or fever—because of a particular immunization or dose of a drug. A mild measles-like rash after measles vaccine is fairly common, for example. Serious, life-threatening allergic reactions can be side effects of vaccines, but occur very rarely.
…….
An adverse event is something quite different from a side effect. A side effect is “caused by” the vaccine, whereas an adverse event is something that occurred at about the time. a vaccine was given, but which could have been caused by the vaccine or could have just occurred at that time by coincidence. Although fever is a side effect of many vaccines, not all occurrences of fever after vaccines are caused by the vaccine. This book discusses how scientists determine whether an adverse event is actually a side effect—that is, caused by the vaccine. Thus, when an adverse event occurs after vaccination, it needs to be determined whether the adverse event was caused by the vaccine or whether it was just coincidental—that is, it was going to happen anyway. (p. 25-6)
An “adverse effect” from a vaccine is not something that is “undesirable” or “contrary to expectations”; the term has a specific meaning, as noted above. Do Vaccines Cause That? is a “user-friendly guide” for parents concerned about vaccine safety and it would seem to be a book that a “vaccine greener” might wish to consult. There are numerous other definitions of green and it’s hard to say what a rally about vaccine safety—vaccine awareness, if you will—has to do with the schools, services, and supports that autistic children and autistic individuals need to succeed.
Autism is not about vaccines, it’s about people.
Jeff Stimpson
Jill Cornfield
Aaaah… no, she didn’t. Pretty clearly, actually. Apparently, it’s pointless.
Cliff
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
For clarification Chuck, nah, not much interested in conspiracy theories. If I misunderstood your point, sorry, no ball, no foul.
We talk alot about measles because of the outbreaks (not surprising given how contagious it is), but rubella is more insidious because the exposure is more covert. The disease is pretty mild, but the results to a developing fetus can be pretty devastating and that effect is quite well known.
For almost a century our state has had 2 rather well known special needs schools for the deaf and the blind. These are for students whose needs rise well above those that can be served by the public schools. I have a friend who works at the school for the blind because of her expertise in working with autistic students (many are dually diagnosed).
Currently the schools are consolidating because of dwindling enrollment. A lengthy report which examined the contributions of IDEA, early intervention and other variables primarily laid the loss of enrollment to one variable: decreased cases of congenital rubella.
I first learned ASL because a friend was deaf due to rubella.
@Shawn3k,
I’m not surprised at the general response to the rally on the celebrity and entertainment websites. The message has been sufficiently watered down and “tamed” so that it seems like it’s just a bunch of parents of disabled kids doing what they think is right, and led by Jenny McCarthy, who could be seen (in the public eye) as having gone through a bit of a conversion into green-mom-concerned-about-kids’-health. With a G rating.
Not all the celebutainment sites behaved as one might predict. PerezHilton (!) had quite a few commenters discussing the the research quite cogently. Of course that was yesterday, don’t know where that thread might have gone today.
A great podcast I found http://www.skeptoid.com had an excellent episode on Autism/Vaccinations. Well worth checking out. As for Eonline…I couldn’t stand not to post my two cents along with a couple links.
Sadly, the good that can come out of “going green”, is being overtaken by those who latch onto it as if it were the latest fashion. They have no idea, how to discern where being green can be helpful or harmful. All this type of mindset does, is promote misinformation and misconception…a potentially deadly mix, when it comes to not vaccinating (IMHO).
Regan! You’re reading Perez Hilton? The shame! Have you seen TMZ’s comment? Quite cogent, really, in its irony, re Jim Carry et al: “Finally, someone who’s taking a stand against immunizations.”
Emily! Yes the shame :-).
The TMZ comments were also more thoughtful and critical than one might expect…
Hey, I was reading him too! And Jezebel.
Clearly there are some folks posting here that are more concerned with being right than with being catious with the welfare of children. Dr. Coppers post that these vaccines are “life saving” clearly shows a bias toward the money making machine our medical community and the certainly the drug companies have become. There is no basis for objectivety. The finacial stakes are to high. To simply assume that the doctors and scienetists that insist the vaccines are safe are ethical and completely beyon reproach is to ignore the fact that the tobacco companies for years were able to hire doctors and scienetists that insisted that there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung and heart disease. Dr. Copper’s statement is a clear cut example of professional propoganda. The majority of the vaccines in question do not even combat “life threatening” pathogens. As a child of the sixties who recieved realatively few vaccines, as we all did then, I can atest to the fact that my peers were not exactly dropping like flys due to a lack of vaccinations. Is is the very medical community that some instill their blind faith that has led us to become the over medicated society we have become. This was the opinion of my late father-an MD. As for hesteria, the only hesteria I have witnessed so far has been the postings of Ms Clark who seems to want ot simply take a side and present an ugly arguement to support the side she ahs chosen.