*sigh*
Anyone can find one or two examples of literally ANYTHING. But such isolated cases don't mean a thing when you're considering the overall value or harm of something.
As an example, a few kids have been killed by drinking too much water. Does that make water a wicked monster foisted onto unsuspecting children by a heartless government?
FAR, far more children have been saved from untold suffering and death by vaccines than have EVER been harmed by them. Vaccines are such an overwhelmingly positive thing that it's not even close.
The accusation of 'fear-mongering hyperbole' doesn't work, because it was the PEDITRICAN that told her it was the vaccines.
Doctors are wrong sometimes. I'm sure you know that, don't you?
Besides, even if it really was the vaccine in that case, it's insignificant compared to the MILLIONS of children who have been protected by them.
Do yourself a favor and look up how many children used to get polio before the vaccine was invented. Now, multiply that by generations over time and tell me that a couple of POSSIBLE (doubtful) bad experiences with vaccines outweighs saving that many children from being crippled.
It just doesn't.
BTW, I didn't say children shouldn't be vaccinated, I question the age at WHICH they are vaccinated an whether or not the vaccinations are against the wishes of the parents.
Children are the most vulnerable to disease. Their immune systems are the weakest, so protecting them early only makes sense.
And as for going against the wishes of the parents, that sounds an AWFUL lot like the argument of a pro-abortion mother who thinks it should be her choice to allow her baby to live or not. It's certainly not as extreme as being pro-choice, but it's the same logic.
Should parents be allowed to choose whether or not to protect their children? Should they be allowed to choose whether or not to feed them? ...shelter them?
Vaccinating children against horrible, painful, crippling REAL diseases has such an overwhelmingly positive result that there's no reason at all not to require it.
None.
For the most part your observations are correct. I worked in an immunizations clinic for years in the Air Force. I’ll never forget the child that had a severe reaction from DPT and nearly died.
If a child has a history of reactions, is very sensitive to the environment, multiple allergies, I’d proceed with extreme caution to the point of with-holding them depending on severity, but otherwise, there’s simply no argument, except flu vaccines. Also worth mentioning: egg allergies would factor into the equation since egg yolks are used in some formulations of flu vaccines.
That is the only one that I have no confidence in, simply because it’s a crap shoot and they so often guess the wrong type of flu to target.
Anyone can find one or two examples of literally ANYTHING. But such isolated cases don’t mean a thing when you’re considering the overall value or harm of something
Children becoming disabled don’t mean a thing? You’d be singing a different tune if it was YOUR child, now wouldn’t you? Or do you actually suppose you would happily write it off as a sacrifice needed for the ‘good’ of others? If so, you are much worse than any of the parents you ridicule for not vaccinating. Judging from your many outrageous posts on this subject, I suspect you are either a CDC-brainwashed doctor or pharmaceutical company shill.