本文是自然医生Mark Davis与临床研究员Mark Webb的对抗性合作竞赛投稿，讨论了自然医学界对常规儿童疫苗的看法分歧。Mark Davis认为疫苗可能导致超炎症疾病，而Mark Webb则认为疫苗并非过敏和自身免疫疾病的诱因。最终，两位作者在对话中达成了对公共健康有益的共识。

🌿 Mark Davis提出，自然医学界对疫苗的看法分歧严重，他本人对常规儿童疫苗可能导致超炎症疾病持有合理怀疑，并主张在预防疫苗可预防疾病的同时，应给予家长更多选择权。

🔬 Mark Webb则从免疫学角度出发，他的研究专注于哮喘发展的机制，他认为疫苗并非过敏和自身免疫疾病的诱因，这一观点可能转移了寻找这些疾病真正原因的注意力。

🤝 经过对话，两位作者都受到了彼此观点的影响，Mark Davis更加确信广泛的儿童疫苗接种符合公共健康利益，而Mark Webb则认为政策应反映当前最佳证据，同时也要有对未知事物的谦逊。

This is an entry to the Adversarial Collaboration Contest by Mark Davis and Mark Webb, who sent the following introduction along with their entry:

Mark Davis is a naturopathic doctor. Naturopathic medicine is a century-old profession in the United States, but it’s small, with fewer than 10,000 NDs licensed to practice naturopathic medicine in the US in 2018. The profession has been historically highly skeptical of vaccination in general, and the modern profession is contentiously split on the topic, with vocal advocates of CDC-scheduled routine childhood vaccination and vocal dissidents both offering continuing medical education for NDs. Mark Davis’ main goal in this adversarial collaboration was to argue that there is enough reasonable doubt that routine childhood vaccines could contribute to hyper-inflammatory disease, and enough reduced harm from vaccine-preventable diseases from other medical and public health interventions (in countries with greater economic resources) that parents should be given wide latitude to make individual choices re: routine childhood vaccines despite the clear benefits to individual and public health from preventing those diseases. He became more convinced in his conversations with Mark Webb that widespread childhood vaccination is in the best interest of public health.

Mark Webb is a clinical researcher – with a current focus in oncology. He completed a PhD in immunology, specifically focused on the mechanisms driving the development of asthma. Mark Webb’s main goal in this collaboration was to argue that atopy and autoimmunity are likely not driven by vaccination, and that this idea is a distraction from finding the real causes of the increase in these diseases. Throughout the collaboration, he was reminded of the nature of safety surveillance with all drugs, and of the sensitive nature of vaccination as a medical intervention. He became persuaded that policy should not just reflect the best evidence currently available, but should also reflect a certain degree of humility that there will always be something we don’t know.