近日美國德州一間巨型教會（註）的信眾有超過二十人感染麻疹，大多是兒童，患者中有不少是沒有過接受麻疹疫苗注射的（或沒有接受所有的注射）。原來這間教會的牧師相信麻疹疫苗會導致自閉症，曾勸喻信眾不要隨便讓子女接受麻疹疫苗注射，看來有些信徒很聽話，在這個醫療問題寧願信牧師而不信醫生，結果信心敵不過病毒，一人感染，便迅速在教會內傳染多人。
麻疹對兒童的殺傷力特別大，每一千個感染的兒童中會有一兩個死亡，而麻疹疫苗則非常有效，因此，所有醫生都會替兒童注射疫苗
--- 除非家長反對。本來是沒有家長會反對的，可是，二十多年前一份英國醫學期刊有一篇論文提出麻疹疫苗可能會導致自閉症；這篇論文後來被發現大有問題，作者的客觀性和研究方法都成疑，期刊決定撤回論文。然而，自此麻疹疫苗會導致自閉症一說便陰魂不散，近十年更有一些名人推波助瀾（例如 Jim Carrey 和 Jenny McCarthy），令相信者不減反增。
麻疹疫苗會導致自閉症一說，沒有科學研究支持，接受此說的人所舉的所謂證據，全都是傳聞式的（anecdotal evidence），經不起科學測試。然而，「麻疹疫苗會導致自閉症」彷彿已成為這些人的信仰，科學是動搖不了他們的信念的，他們或會堅持你引用的科學研究不客觀，或會指責你迷信現有的科學，總之就是絕不會改變他們的看法。上述教會的情況更糟，因為是信眾信任的牧師鼓吹「麻疹疫苗會導致自閉症」，可以說是本有的信仰催生新的信仰，兩者扣連，更難打破。
有些反疫苗的人不只是反麻疹疫苗，而是反對所有疫苗注射，認為所有疫苗都對人體有害；跟「麻疹疫苗會導致自閉症」一樣，這已是一個信仰，而且已經有一個英文名堂，叫
‘vaccine denialism’。香港的保健名人周兆祥就是信奉
vaccine denialism 的，說過的驚人之語包括「一個多世紀以來，因注射疫苗已經導致千千萬萬兒童死亡」。不知道周君知道上述德州教會的麻疹爆發後，會有甚麼反應？堅持麻疹疫苗無效，認為感染者即使是打了疫苗仍一樣會感染？還是承認疫苗可以預防感染，但對身體的害處比感染麻疹更大？
Richard Dawkins 曾說信仰是一種病毒（他的用語是 ‘the virus of faith’），這種病毒只可能有一種疫苗，就是從小就開始的批判思考教育。
（註）英文叫
‘megachurch’，聚會人數超過二千人，譯作「大教會」不足以顯其大，故用「巨型教會」一詞。
An Australian case ended up in court this year.
回覆刪除Teen Witness must have a transfusion, rules judge
Date April 18, 2013
-
Unusual case: The NSW Supreme Court is ordering a 17-year-old boy to undergo a blood transfusion. Photo: Domino Postiglione
A 17-year-old Jehovah's Witness suffering from a lethal form of blood cancer and refusing treatment threatened to rip the IV needle out of his arm if doctors attempted a blood transfusion.
But the NSW Supreme Court has overruled the wishes of the patient, known only as ''X'', and his parents, ordering him to undergo the potentially lifesaving procedure.
The case is unusual because at the time of the court's ruling on March 28, X was just 10 months away from turning 18 - by which time he would be considered an adult and entitled to refuse blood products.
Usually, such court cases involve much younger children whose parents have refused to allow lifesaving treatment.
In his judgment, Supreme Court Justice Ian Gzell said X had been ''cocooned in faith''.
Professor Glenn Marshall, who is treating X for Hodgkin's lymphoma at Sydney Children's Hospital, was told by the patient being sedated for a blood transfusion would be akin to being raped.
On a whiteboard in his hospital room, X's father wrote a scripture reference to abstaining from blood, which is forbidden for Jehovah's Witnesses.
X was admitted to the hospital in January last year, and he and his parents consented to chemotherapy which continued for seven months. The treatment resulted in remission, but in November Professor Marshall found cancer in the patient's lungs, spleen and lymph nodes. He recommended X receive more intense chemotherapy but, because that treatment was likely to lead to a blood transfusion, X and his parents refused.
Instead X had two cycles of chemotherapy at the lower dose, but scans in February showed only a 25 per cent to 50 per cent reduction in his tumours.
''Professor Marshall was disappointed with these results,'' Justice Gzell's said in his judgment.
''Based on his experience treating patients of similar age with similar disease type, he would normally expect no tumour to be present after treatment with higher doses of different cytotoxic chemotherapy agents.''
By March, X developed severe anaemia and chemotherapy had to be stopped. Professor Marshall feared that once it was restarted X would again become severely anaemic. He told X and his parents if he suffered severe bleeding or his blood pressure dropped to dangerous levels, blood would immediately be brought to the ward and administered. In response, X said he would ''rip the IV out''.
Professor Marshall, who has 20 years' experience treating children with cancer, told the Court X had an 80 per cent chance of dying from anaemia without a blood transfusion.
If he was allowed to administer his preferred treatment, he said X would have up to a 50 per cent chance of survival.
Apart from ripping out the IV if he could, X and his father would otherwise obey the court order, Judge Gzell found.
''The sanctity of life in the end is a more powerful reason for me to make the orders than is respect for the dignity of the individual,'' Justice Gzell said in his ruling. ''X is still a child, although a mature child of high intelligence.''
(18.4.2013 Sydney Morning Herald)
Thanks.
刪除Court seems nothing could do with ‘vaccine denialism’ because two cases seemed not the same - refused blood transfusion would almost certain get immediate life-threatening outcome and refused vaccination won’t.
刪除王教授，打錯字了？承應？
回覆刪除S&B
謝謝，已改正。
刪除alt-med市場巨大, 不少人對此篤信不已, 解見王教授這樣的文章(就連主場新聞也給周兆祥那傢伙散播反疫苗的偽科學囈語), 希望這篇文章可以廣傳!
回覆刪除Andrew Wakefield一篇有關MMR疫苗引致自閉症的作假論文, 遺害至今, 令人扼腕; 其教徒Jenny McCarthy更當上The View主持, 勢將進一步散播各式謬論, 令人擔心.
//....這種病毒只可能有一種疫苗，就是從小就開始的批判思考教育。//
回覆刪除若然有那麼多人受這種「信仰病毒」影響，想必社會是缺乏抗「信仰病毒」疫苗了。
王Sir可否考慮製造此種疫苗--寫一本如何防止「信仰病毒」入侵大腦的關於批判思考教育的書並配以各種類似實例分析來使眾人提高對「信仰病毒」的免疫力？
一兩本書是不會有甚麼作用的，要由學校教育著手。
刪除//就是從小就開始的批判思考教育。//...//由學校教育著手.//
刪除That makes me think about it a bit. (My special "circular reasoning.")
//要由學校教育著手.// Maybe better yet, the parents do it too. Then I think, wait, most parents may not be able to do it. Okay, just let the school do it. Wait again, maybe most grade school teachers can't do it too. How can we start doing it when the kids are young? Okay, wait until they are in middle school. Hopefully, the middle school teachers can handle it. (I'm not sure.) If not, let's do it in high school. If not, let's do it college. If not... Well, I give up. Let's do it when the kids are old enough. When? When they aren't a kid anymore. Wait, let's step back. The parents should do it. Let them do it. I'm going in circles.
-zpdrmn
伦敦经济学院哲学系的John Worrall教授亦对MMR疫苗争论有研究。他特别指出很多人犯了post hoc ergo propter hoc的逻辑错误，仅因为自闭症发生在MMR疫苗之后就推断出因果关系。
回覆刪除王教授您好!
回覆刪除我是独立新闻网dulinews.com的网管小周。我们网站计划向读者转载并推荐您博文中难得见到的独特的思想和犀利的见解。希望您能告诉我因该如何向读者介绍您的生平。谢谢。
联系：https://www.facebook.com/laoalaoa?ref=tn_tnmn
This is a complicated issue. On one hand, we have to support freedom of speech and right to self-determination (including right to refuse medical treatment). On the other hand, we cannot let these stupid people get free rides from the society. These jerks are taking advantages of the society in two ways: (1) Herd immunity (2) We all have to pay for medical expenses when these jerks get sick.
回覆刪除One basic fair approach: If you don't immunize your kids, then you pay for any medical expenses related to a vaccine preventable illness.
For jerks like 周兆祥, people who listened to him and suffered harm should be allowed to sue him for damage. He is benefiting from making these non-sense comments (his statues, his books etc.) so it is only fair to make him pay when he cause harm to others.
The issue of herd immunity is more difficult to address. If 99% of kids are vaccinated, the remaining 1% will be very safe because they just won't get it from others (unless there is a very close cluster, as in this case all going to the same church). So these people are eating free lunch from others. Unfortunately, to uphold the social good of self-determination, we may have to absorb this cost.