Terminology used in the vax vs anti-vax 'debate'

I just read Homeopathy regime is rejected as judge tells parents to immunise child on the SMH site. The story is sad in that it has to be reported on at all but that's not what I was wondering about for the purpose of this post. It is more about the terminology used in the article.

The author made references to "traditional immunisation" when referencing the actual vaccination schedule. When referencing the SCAM the mother preferred the term "homeopathic vaccination" was used. The way this reads to me "traditional immunisation" would be sending the kids outside with other kids to play in the dirt and get scratched and bruised.

Surely "modern vaccination" would have been a better term. Or even better, "actual vaccination."

Trackback URL for this post:

http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/trackback/11963

Well to me the word

Well to me the word vaccination explicitly means to use a vaccine to inoculate against disease. Getting cuts and bruises and then building immunity through exposure to the various things in the environment is not receiving vaccination. It is acquiring immunity. (in my very limited understanding)

Vaccination shouldn't need a modifier to explain what is meant. Calling water a vaccine should be an offense.

The article is written by someone obviously trying to straddle the fence, as evinced by: "The case is one of several before the courts that involve differing philosophies over childhood vaccination."

It's not a battle of differing philosophies as much as ignorant parents being hoodwinked into providing a substandard level of care for their children.

"A doctor in homeopathic medicine told the court that homeopathic vaccination was safe and effective"

If I was the judge I would be looking to prosecute that "doctor" for perjury.