I say you stop being insensitive to people whose children die of preventable diseases because you grab hold of junk science.
>>I say you stop being insensitive to people whose children die of preventable diseases because you grab hold of junk science.<<
I immunize. However, I do believe that scheduling is a factor.
I also believe that many of the cases thrown up for dying without immunizations had other causation. The MSM uses what it can for whatever cause it wants.
Have you had autism in your family? At this point, I'm very concerned about the NEXT generation. I want to know what is the likely cause. Where's the science on this? I don't see a thing.
If your goal is to save children from bad parental choices, why stop there? A person is as likely to die from chicken pox as they are to die from all sorts of other things. Let's ban parents from letting their children outside in the rain (they might get hit by lightning). Let's ban children from skiing and any sport where they might get hurt. Let's ban bicycles and skateboards and bats and hockey sticks around children and let's ban them from sporting events and monster truck shows and any other place where they might get hurt. And child safety seats? Let's ban children in cars all together, or within 50 feet of a moving car. Think of all of the children's lives that would save. All of those children who die in car accidents could have been saved if only their parents weren't so irresponsible as to put their child in a car in the first place.
If liberty means anything, you have to accept that people are going to use it to make choices that you wouldn't make and even choices that are objectively stupid. The alternative is totalitarianism and the exact same justifications that you are using here for your own little limited brand of totalitarianism, that people are too stupid to make the right choices for the benefit of all without a government mandate, can be used to justify the full-blown 1984 variety.