Posted on 01/13/2009 11:01:34 AM PST by PurpleMan
Wow, you are such a nice person! Thank you for the complements!
Listen a-hole. It is my right to choose to vaccinate my child. I will not go in to details about the vaccines, I will only suggest that you check out 909shot.com. There is too much info there for me to post in this message. Of course, you seem like the type of person that will overlook the facts and continue thinking that your opinion is the only one that matters. Have a nice day! Oh, and don’t respond back.
One of the first, and most important, things to understand when you're doing research is this: Correlation is NOT causation.
There is a strong correlation between the sun rising and the number of pots of coffee brewed. Yet brewing coffee does not cause the sun to rise.
There are many, many variables involved with childhood health other than vaccinations. The scientific studies I have seen have found no link between vaccinations and increases in chronic problems, including autism.
If you don't account for all the variables, there is NO way to know which of them, if any, is causing a particular result.
One thing that is proven, clear, certain and irrefutable is that vaccines stop horrible diseases. That's not a theory, it's a pure, undiluted fact.
The cost/benefit analysis varies by disease and vaccination, which is my point, and there are other reasons to oppose the use of certain vaccines (e.g., fetal cell lines used in their creation). And the ideal risk/benefit curve for many vaccines does not fall along the schedule mandated by vaccine promoters. The risk of Chicken Pox or Mumps if much lower for young children than old children and the main risk of Rubella is primarily to pregnant women, yet they give these vaccines to very young children (and have a Scabbies vaccine if that's a concern for someone who has Chicken Pox as a young child). Failure to acknowledge that all vaccines are not the same with the same cost/benefit trade-offs and trying to make it sound as if every vaccine is as important as the Polio vaccine is absurd.
Yes, pointing out the benefits of the Polio vaccine or Measles vaccine is a legitimate counter for someone who opposes those vaccinations but it's not a counter at all for someone who opposes the Chicken Pox vaccine, would prefer that the MMR be given as three seperate vaccinations, want their children to be vaccinated over a longer time period than the compressed schedule currently recommended or mandated, oppose the use of certain vaccines because they use fetal cell lines, or honestly don't see the cost/benefit analysis in favor of the benefit for their particular child and circumstances. Plenty of people are fine with Polio but oppose the MMR, the MMR as a single vaccine, the Chicken Pox vaccine, the HPV vaccine, the Hepetitis B vaccine, and so on for reasons that are very much reasonable cost/benefit reasons. And there are also people who simpy oppose the government mandate and think that parents should be able to decide what happens to their own children for much the same reason why conservatives oppose other government mandates and attempts to tell people how to raise their children.
And my larger point is that if the pro-vaccination people would lighten up and lay off a little and spread the vaccinations across a much longer period of time so that it extends well beyond the point at which things like Autism appear and stop worrying about vaccinating for every disease no matter how low risk it is (again, Chicken Pox), then it would be much easier to show that there wasn't a connection and parents wouldn't be forced into doing something that on face value just looks dangerous (giving their child injection after injection before they even turn 2). Shouting and people and putting them down sure feels good but it doesn't change minds and often just emboldens the other side and alienates fence sitters. Further, if it weren't for the people who oppose vaccines and think they cause autism, there wouldn't have been pressure to remove mercury from vaccines, which seems like a plus to me. So is this all about being right and proving the other side wrong in an all or nother battle where no middle ground is allowed or is it about the health of kids?
And how many adults of any age consult with their doctors with any regularity about booster shots? I doubt most do because I've surprised doctors by asking them for it. I also asked my doctor about vaccinations before travelling to a Third World country on business (I'm vaccinated for Typhus, by the way) even though most of the adults in my office sent there never asked their doctor and got no vaccines. That's a big problem when the diseases that people get innoculated for as children don't give them immunity through adulthood like getting the real disease does, and that's especially bad if they think they have immunity of the sort that the disease gives them. In the case of Mumps and Chicken Pox, they are far worse getting them as adults. In fact, the more I look at the Chicken Pox example, the more I think its a very bad deal from a cost/benefit standpoint. No, it's no fun and can be dangerous to some people, but the alternative has risks, too.
So, since there are too many variables to prove the vaccines ARE causing the problems, there should also be too many variables to prove that they AREN’T, right? Just because something is not proven does not mean that it is proven false. Just as you claim to have seen all this great evidence that vaccines cause no problems at all, I have have read many books, seen a lot of research and talked to other health professionals that seem to think it is a problem. But, you believe what you want to believe and do what you feel is best, and leave others to do the same.
The point of cost/benefit analysis is to compare the COST of something with the BENEFIT.
The benefits of vaccines, even for chicken pox, outweigh the costs. Do you have evidence to the contrary which you're keeping to yourself?
I've hammered on the benefits; where are the harms?
Even if the vaccinations are not performed at the ideal time, or at the age of highest risk, is there any related harm to that?
As far as the Thimerosal uproar, it remains to be seen if its removal will have any significant effect. I strongly doubt that it will. Rates of childhood autism, or more correctly, the diagnosis of autism, will continue to rise with no Thimerosal, IMO.
This will join the ranks of other baseless "eeeeevil chemical" scares such as Red Dye #5 and DDT.
Wrong.
The actual scientific studies which account for all the variables all support vaccination as overwhelmingly good.
The anecdotes of isolated exceptions do NOT prove that they're bad.
Just because something is not proven does not mean that it is proven false.
That's correct. But the claim that childhood vaccination is bad has been proven false! Not because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, but because study after study has directly proven the fears to be false.
Yes, there will be some people who have negative reactions, just as there are some people who can die from exposure to peanuts. But just as this doesn't make peanuts a Bad Thing, vaccines are not a Bad Thing because some people have had bad outcomes.
As another FReeper pointed out, you and I might just owe our very lives to childhood vaccination. It's sadly ironic that this is the case for so many who oppose them.
Can you cite or provide a link to even one study that accounts for ‘all’ the variables and proves ‘overwhelmingly’ that vaccines cause no harm and are great? Just one, because I would really like to read it AND know who funded it. And I still don’t understand how on one hand you can say there are too many variables to come to a conclusion, and then turn around and say studies have taken all the variables into account and proven your point of view. Which is it? Amazingly, when certain agencies or companies fund studies to prove what they want proven, the results always support what they wanted to prove. Imagine that! And if the evidence showed otherwise, do you think the government, medical community and pharmaceutical companies would admit decades of fraud and harm and shout it from the rooftops? This is a subject on which you really have to look at the evidence objectively and do your own work to put the pieces of the puzzle together if you ever want to learn the truth.
And as Thomas Sowell points out in The Quest for Cosmic Justice, we don't always know all of the costs and benefits of things we do, to which I'll add that there is quite a bit of subjectivity when it comes to weighing the costs and the benefits. The United States set the speed limit at 55 for a long time because looking only at fuel mileage, there was a clear benefit to it but if someone values the lost benefits of driving fast (the cost) more than the benefit of higher gas mileage, then the 55 speed limit isn't a good trade-off. Similarly, the costs and benefits of vaccines are not simply found in clinical risk assessments of getting the disease vs. taking the vaccine.
The benefits of vaccines, even for chicken pox, outweigh the costs. Do you have evidence to the contrary which you're keeping to yourself? I've hammered on the benefits; where are the harms?
I've explained why I think the cost/benefit trade-offs of the Chicken Pox vaccine do not come out in favor of the vaccine several times in the two recent vaccine threads. To summarize, (A) the only Chicken Pox vaccine available uses fetal cell lines (a subjective "cost" that extends beyond the risks and benefits to the vaccine user), (B) the timing of the vaccine vaccinates children when they have the least risk (as infants and young children) instead of targeting them when the risk is higher (as teenagers and young adults -- the benefit of vaccinating a teenager or adult who has not had Chicken Pox is much greater than the benefit of vaccinating an infant), (C) the risk of death from Chicken Pox is so low that it approaches (and may match, once you start factoring in multiple doses which you need to maintain immunity) the risk of taking the vaccine, (D) the vaccine is only 85% to 90% effective (meaning that 10% to 15% of the people who take the risk of getting the vaccine get no benefit from it) and (E) getting Chicken Pox as a young child gives a person lifelong immunity while the vaccine doesn't, which means that adults who get the vaccine rather than the disease, assume that it gives them lifelong immunity like the disease (it doesn't), and don't get boosters as a adult, will be at a much greater risk of getting Chicken Pox as an adult than they would be if they just had the disease as a child. What about Scabies, which people who have had Chicken Pox can get as adults? They have a vaccine for that? What about people who don't catch Chicken Pox as children? The vaccine makes a lot more sense for those people. In fact, the cost/benefit curve seems to tilt in favor of benefit (for all of the reasons stated above, except the fetal cell objection) if a person reaches adolescence without ever catching the disease, but not earlier. That's the conclusion an honest cost/benefit analysis leads me to.
And of course all of this ignores the cost of letting the government force parents to make certain decisions for their children which sets a precedent for creeping government intervention in how parents raise their children. Once you can justify forcing parents to vaccinate their children "for the greater good", there are all sorts of things that you can also justify on the same grounds. Liberty always contains the inherent risk that people will do the wrong or foolish thing and if you can't accept or tolerate that, then there is really little value in letting people have liberty or to vote on things because giving them that freedom means that they'll inevitably do what you think is the wrong thing from time to time Maintaining liberty requires the acceptance of letting people make different cost/benefit judgements than you would and even to let them do stupid things that make no sense to you. I think it makes a lot of sense to give most vaccines to children but I'm very reluctant to take the right of other parents away to not vaccinate their children if they don't want to for whatever reasons make sense to them. The loss of liberty (and potential future loss of liberty) must always be added to the "cost" side of any cost/benefit analysis once you start talking about government mandates.
Even if the vaccinations are not performed at the ideal time, or at the age of highest risk, is there any related harm to that?
A cost/benefit analysis is based on the costs and the benefits. If you lessen the benefits by giving them when they are less needed, then they don't balancing as wel against the costs. And as I pointed out above with Chicken Pox, there are real benefits to actually getting the disease that are defeated by the vaccine, yet it might make some sense to vaccinate older children and adults who don't get the disease as children because the risks of the disease as an adult are greater, which makes the benefits greater. Simply put, if you are really balancing costs and benefits, you should want to maximize the benefits and minimize the cost.
As far as the Thimerosal uproar, it remains to be seen if its removal will have any significant effect. I strongly doubt that it will. Rates of childhood autism, or more correctly, the diagnosis of autism, will continue to rise with no Thimerosal, IMO.
I think it's irrelevant whether Thimerosal or mercury cause autism. Regardless, mercury is not a healthy thing to expose young children to, especially when we live in a world that is ruthlessly banning lead in all toys and children's clothing. If nothing else, it adds a risk that's not necessary and, again, if you are really looking to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs, that's a good thing.
This will join the ranks of other baseless "eeeeevil chemical" scares such as Red Dye #5 and DDT.
Or lead? They also recommend avoiding too much fish that may contain high mercury levels for the same reason. Do you really think injecting children with mercury is a good idea, especially if they are required to have a couple of dozen injections before they turn 2?
Then where? Tell me what other costs a parent should consider?
The benefits of avoiding fatal, crippling and/or painful disease should be pretty clear to most parents. The additional benefit to society is that your child is much less likely to become a carrier and infect others. (That's also the societal benefit and justification for government involvement.)
I've explained why I think the cost/benefit trade-offs of the Chicken Pox vaccine do not come out in favor of the vaccine several times in the two recent vaccine threads. To summarize, (A) the only Chicken Pox vaccine available uses fetal cell lines (a subjective "cost" that extends beyond the risks and benefits to the vaccine user), (B) the timing of the vaccine vaccinates children when they have the least risk (as infants and young children) instead of targeting them when the risk is higher (as teenagers and young adults -- the benefit of vaccinating a teenager or adult who has not had Chicken Pox is much greater than the benefit of vaccinating an infant), (C) the risk of death from Chicken Pox is so low that it approaches (and may match, once you start factoring in multiple doses which you need to maintain immunity) the risk of taking the vaccine, (D) the vaccine is only 85% to 90% effective (meaning that 10% to 15% of the people who take the risk of getting the vaccine get no benefit from it) and (E) getting Chicken Pox as a young child gives a person lifelong immunity while the vaccine doesn't, which means that adults who get the vaccine rather than the disease, assume that it gives them lifelong immunity like the disease (it doesn't), and don't get boosters as a adult, will be at a much greater risk of getting Chicken Pox as an adult than they would be if they just had the disease as a child. What about Scabies, which people who have had Chicken Pox can get as adults? They have a vaccine for that? What about people who don't catch Chicken Pox as children? The vaccine makes a lot more sense for those people. In fact, the cost/benefit curve seems to tilt in favor of benefit (for all of the reasons stated above, except the fetal cell objection) if a person reaches adolescence without ever catching the disease, but not earlier. That's the conclusion an honest cost/benefit analysis leads me to.
Chicken Pox vaccination has been very, very successful. 90% reduction of the disease in 10 years ( CDC study )
Whatever you may think about the ideal age for the vaccination, it has been empirically shown to have prevented the DEATH of many children. Real deaths, not hypothetical ones.
Do you really think I should have no say in the matter when your Chicken Pox infected child could literally KILL my child?
And of course all of this ignores the cost of letting the government force parents to make certain decisions for their children which sets a precedent for creeping government intervention in how parents raise their children. Once you can justify forcing parents to vaccinate their children "for the greater good", there are all sorts of things that you can also justify on the same grounds. Liberty always contains the inherent risk that people will do the wrong or foolish thing and if you can't accept or tolerate that, then there is really little value in letting people have liberty or to vote on things because giving them that freedom means that they'll inevitably do what you think is the wrong thing from time to time Maintaining liberty requires the acceptance of letting people make different cost/benefit judgements than you would and even to let them do stupid things that make no sense to you. I think it makes a lot of sense to give most vaccines to children but I'm very reluctant to take the right of other parents away to not vaccinate their children if they don't want to for whatever reasons make sense to them. The loss of liberty (and potential future loss of liberty) must always be added to the "cost" side of any cost/benefit analysis once you start talking about government mandates.
As mentioned above, the government has a very legitimate role in fighting disease. The diseases targeted by mandatory vaccinations KILL people. Really.
Is the brief pain of an injection and the inconvenience of the visit to the doctor really such a high price to pay to keep your child and your neighbor's children free from disease?
The preamble to the Constitution does declare that one purpose of the Fed Gov is to "promote the general welfare". Childhood vaccination is as clear-cut as one could ask for as an application of that goal.
Simply put, if you are really balancing costs and benefits, you should want to maximize the benefits and minimize the cost.
Of course, that would be ideal. But a non-optimal solution is not the same as a bad or wrong solution.
The results say it all. Childhood vaccination has been and continues to be an overwhelming success story. Improvements and adjustments to the idea will continue to arise as problems are nailed down and our capabilities increase.
I think it's irrelevant whether Thimerosal or mercury cause autism. Regardless, mercury is not a healthy thing to expose young children to, especially when we live in a world that is ruthlessly banning lead in all toys and children's clothing. If nothing else, it adds a risk that's not necessary and, again, if you are really looking to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs, that's a good thing.
As with ALL poisons, the dose is the key. The small quantities of mercury in Thimerosal were far below toxic levels. Comparison with lead is a red herring.
The elimination of mercury compounds may be a good thing, or it may have no effect at all. Pushing for change out of unsubstantiated fear is a Bad Idea, and is the favored method of tyrants. Billions of taxpayer dollars will be spent in coming years in a silly attempt to alter the climate of the earth based on exactly the same rationale.
Are you sure about that?
If I remember correctly, it is mumps that can cause this if contracted after puberty in boys/men
According to Grandma, both have the risk of sterility.
I have. Repeatedly. The fetal cell line issue is very important to me for the same reason that I might refuse to take organs from another child purchased and murdered in a Third World country in order to save the life of my child. The loss of liberty that's associated with government mandates and intrusion in parenting decision should be an important issue for any conservative. The casual dismissal of those concerns suggests a very unhealty attitude toward liberty (that it's always expendable for the greater good or if people might make the wrong choices on their own which misses the whole point of liberty). In the case of Chicken Pox, temporary immunity and a dependency on vaccines vs. perpetual immunity from the disease is fairly significant because adults often don't get boosters. As I've also pointed out, the immunizaion schedules mandated by the government are not optimal and are driven by objectives that do not necessarily apply to any parents individual child. The risks for Hepetitis B, for example, very significantly from child to child and a parent is in a better position than a one-size-fits-all policy to decide whether the risk to their child is substantial or not. Similarly, we not only have the MMR but the MMRV combination vaccines for reasons of convenience, not effectiveness. So why is it fair game for those promoting, making, and mandating vaccines to consider factors other than the heath of children, maximizing the benefits, and minimizing the cost but not for parents?
The benefits of avoiding fatal, crippling and/or painful disease should be pretty clear to most parents. The additional benefit to society is that your child is much less likely to become a carrier and infect others. (That's also the societal benefit and justification for government involvement.)
The risk of Chicken Pox being a crippling and/or painful disease for my child is much lower than their risk of getting hit by lightning. Parents who let their children go outside in the rain when there is any risk of lightning are being more irresponsible than a parent who doesn't give their child a Chicken Pox vaccination. Should we mandate that all parents keep their children inside if there is any risk of lightning? Polio was a huge risk that crippled a large percentage of people who had it but most parents long considered Chicken Pox neither crippling nor nor very painful and many were willing to porposely expose their own children to it. As this New York Times article (from before it was mandated) points out:
But from a medical perspective, chicken pox is more a monumental nuisance than a danger. Unlike measles, which is often followed by pneumonia, or polio, which can result in permanent paralysis, chicken pox in children is usually a benign short-lived illness with virtually no long-term consequences, which grants lifetime immunity. A vast majority of the economic cost of the disease is attributable to lost pay of parents who become housebound with children who are not allowed to go back to school or day care until their pockmarks have disappeared.
Some scientists say that it is nonetheless time to approve a chicken pox vaccine.
So, we now force children under 2 to get a vaccine for a disease that's, "more a monumental nuisance than a danger," so that, according to the article, the parents don't have to take time off of work to care of their sick child (the scenario under which the cost/benefit analysis you claim to care around actually pans out)? Since the loss of parental productivity is the main "societal benefit", shouldn't parents be the ones to decide if they want or need that benefit?
Chicken Pox vaccination has been very, very successful. 90% reduction of the disease in 10 years ( CDC study )
A 90% reduction in a disease thats "more a monumental nuisance than a danger" in favor of a vaccine that requires boosters to remain effective. What you seem to be missing here is that we won't really know how the demographics of Chicken Pox are going to play out until those children vaccinated in the 1990s and this decade instead of catching the disease turn 30, 40, or 50 and their vaccine-based immunity wears off. What's it like ot catch Chicken Pox at 30, 40, or 50?
Whatever you may think about the ideal age for the vaccination, it has been empirically shown to have prevented the DEATH of many children. Real deaths, not hypothetical ones.
Do you really think I should have no say in the matter when your Chicken Pox infected child could literally KILL my child?
Many more children are killed every year by drivers so do you think I should have a say in whether you or your child should ever be able to drive or not? You really don't get this "liberty" thing, do you? And if you are so concerned about your child dying from Chicken Pox (less than 100 deaths per 4 million cases per year prior to teh vaccine), then by all means vaccinate your child for the disease if you think the vaccine is a better bet. Similarly, if I don't want my child to die from an automobile, the solution is to keep my child out of the road and not to tell you that you can't drive.
As mentioned above, the government has a very legitimate role in fighting disease. The diseases targeted by mandatory vaccinations KILL people. Really.
And the government has a very legimate roll in all sorts of things and that's exactly how liberty gets flushed down the drain. All sorts of things kill people and all sorts of things you do may kill me or my child. Does that give me the justification to regulate your life because I don't like the risk you pose to me or my child?
Is the brief pain of an injection and the inconvenience of the visit to the doctor really such a high price to pay to keep your child and your neighbor's children free from disease?
Now you are simply being dishonest. The vaccines, themselves, have a risk of death. It's miniscule. So is the risk of dying from Chicken Pox. If you can use a miniscule risk to justify a government mandate, why can't someone else use a miniscule risk to oppose it? And as I've repeatedly pointed out, the price isn't simply the pain of the injection, the very small risk of death, or even the moral cost of the use of fetal cells. The vaccine does not confer lifetime immunity like getting the disease does. The vaccine is an inferior way to innoculate someone from Chicken Pox as an adult.
The preamble to the Constitution does declare that one purpose of the Fed Gov is to "promote the general welfare". Childhood vaccination is as clear-cut as one could ask for as an application of that goal.
The very next sentence, which you conveniently leave off is, "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". As any conserviatve should know. liberty and security are often at odds with one another. And if you can really justify government mandates for preventing a largely benign disease that kills less than 100 people a year despite widepread infection rates, what else can you justify government getting involved in? If you really want to save children and stop deaths, let's start with cars. Clearly, they aren't regulated and controlled nearly enough since so many people die because of them. Perhaps we should mandate that every car be built like a NASCAR car (full roll cage, 5 point seat belts, fuel bladder, etc.) and set a national speed limit of 25 mph, which was good enough for people when they used horses. Think of all the lives we'd save and don't be deterred by the fact that cars would cost a lot more than they do now. Is this hyperbole? Not when you are talking about Chicken Pox as if it were Polio.
Of course, that would be ideal. But a non-optimal solution is not the same as a bad or wrong solution.
Who gets to decide that? So it's OK for a bureaucrat to add a 1 in 100,000 risk to my child's life on their "non-optimal solution" but it's not OK for me to give your child a 1 in 100,000 risk (in reality much lower if you choose to vaccinate your child, anyway) on their life by not vaccinating my child?
The results say it all. Childhood vaccination has been and continues to be an overwhelming success story. Improvements and adjustments to the idea will continue to arise as problems are nailed down and our capabilities increase.
Or they'll just keep forcing parents to give more and more vaccines to their children until they do slip up and children start dying, and then there will be a backlash, which there already is over the suspicion that children are being hurt.
As with ALL poisons, the dose is the key. The small quantities of mercury in Thimerosal were far below toxic levels. Comparison with lead is a red herring.
And the dose depends on the size and weight of the person (infants weighing 8 pounds get a much higher dose than a child that weighs 40 pounds) and how many vaccines a child gets. As you give a child more vaccines and artificially push the age down, you increase the dose, which is exactly why later vaccination makes more sense in many cases. If there is anything toxic in there, it will have a smaller impact on a larger child than a small infant. And the comparison to lead is not a red herring, unless you want to argue that lead is magically exempt from your claim that "dose is the key". Most kids never got toxic exposure to lead. But lead and mercury are both metals that have similar problems. Vaccines are not the only mercury expore a child may get (more now that the government is ready to mandate that we all use compact flourescent bulbs) and paint wasn't the only lead exposure a child could get. As will all one-size-fits-all zelousness, you seem to think you can know what each child's circumstances are better than their parents.
The elimination of mercury compounds may be a good thing, or it may have no effect at all. Pushing for change out of unsubstantiated fear is a Bad Idea, and is the favored method of tyrants. Billions of taxpayer dollars will be spent in coming years in a silly attempt to alter the climate of the earth
LOL. The guy who justifies telling everyone else to vaccinate their child because of the less than 1 in 100,000 risk of death that your child would have IF you didn't vaccinate your own child and IF they caugth it is waxing poetic about tyranny? I find your use of a less than 1 in 100,000 risk of your child dying from Chicken Pox IF you didn't vaccinate your own child and IF your child caught Chicken Pox, and ignoring the risks posed by the vaccine itself as being every bit as tyrannical and absurd as you find the behavior of those opposed to mercury in vaccines. The only difference between you and them is that you believe your fear of an incredibly small risk is reasonable and justifies taking away the liberties of others. Talking about Chicken Pox as if it were Polio is every bit as irrationally alarmist but you are just too invested in the idea that your own risk assessment is objective and rational that you don't se it.
The other irony here is that many of the people arguing against all vaccines might never have felt that way if it weren't for the increasing number of vaccines being mandated for children and the agressive schedule that exposes children to many vaccines before they turn two. Had they simply mandated that children be vaccinated for everything before Kindergarten instead of before the age of 2, not combined multiple vaccines into single shots, and not started mandating vaccines for Mickey Mouse diseases like Chicken Pox, then it would have been far less likely for the specific vaccine schedules to correlate with the onset of Autism or for the mandates to trigger conspiracy theory concerns in adults who are generally quite rational. The people promoting vaccines here and elsewhere often make matters worse by dismissing concerns rather than trying to address them, which can be done in many cases.
As for the timing of vaccines, well, I'm no expert on this particular facet of vaccination so it's hard for me to judge. I would note that the measles that almost killed me struck when I was three years old. My mother's worry over my 106 degree fever is my earliest memory.
If the anti-vaccine people have their way this will change.
Anti-vaccine people just want to be left alone to make their own medical decisions and do not want to be part of a tyrannical, meddling, nanny-state. Do you see anti-vaccine people protesting outside doctors offices trying to bar others from getting shots or doing anything that would remotely infringe on someone else’s rights? No. Again, they just want to be free to make their own decisions on this and not be (or have their children) forcibly injected and/or bullied and ridiculed because of their beliefs. It’s very simple: If you want every single shot that comes down the pike- get it! No one is stopping you, and in fact, your doctor will love you for it. If someone doesn’t want the shots, leave them alone! Forcing people to do anything always raises suspicions as to the motives behind it.
The question is do you have the right to deprive your children of life-saving medical care. If enough people act as you say polio, diphtheria, pertussis etc. will return. There have already been several measles mini-epidemics in the past several years. These diseases are deadly, it’s just that few people are conscious of them anymore since we no longer know of people who have contracted them. But we will soon enough if enough people deprive their children of vaccines.
Again, why do you care what medical decisions others make for themselves and families? What about parents who expose their children to smoke, or feed them all junk food and become obese, don’t make them wear bicycle helmets or seat belts? These all have potentially harmful or even deadly consequences. How are you going to force every single parent to make every single decision that you approve of as being healthy and medically necessary? I know that somehow you will reason yourself into thinking that vaccines are somehow different than all of these other decisions, but if you think about it rationally, they aren’t.
And yes, some places have ‘laws’ about helmets or seat belts, but people are still free to break them until such time as they ‘might’ get caught and then only pay a fine and go on their merry way. These laws do not include threats of jail, school expulsion or not being able to get a job or go to school (or even get medical care) unless they are complied with. Nor would complying with them have possible negative medical side effects or involve forced drugging.
The question is do you have the right to deprive your children of life-saving medical care
I don’t feel vaccines are life-saving medical care. They are in theory a preventative. Life saving medical care assumes your life is in imminent danger and said care will save your life (i.e you have a severe infection and need an antibiotic, or were in a car accident and need surgery to stop bleeding, etc...)Vaccines are given to healthy people and do not ‘cure’ any condition. You only assume everyone will get every disease (and die from it) unless vaccinated and thus the vaccine is life-saving.
They certainly are. Untold numbers of people are alive and well today thanks to vaccines. Maybe you're one of them. They have arguably prevented more death and disability than all antibiotics put together. Plus we have very poor treatments for viral diseases by and large. In the early 50's tens of thousands of Americans contracted polio every year. Today that number is zero. Sounds like a lot of lives saved and disability prevented to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.