Posted on 02/03/2015 9:19:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Apparently anything Rand Paul says is “controversial” these days, and that was certainly the case during a recent interview he did on Closing Bell this week. The subject at hand was the exhausting topic of vaccinations, (which the media can’t get enough of) but during the discussion, the Kentucky Senator said something which deserves more attention, and not just regarding vaccinations. Why this is controversial I don’t know.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) doubled down on his position that most vaccines should be voluntary, suggesting Monday that mandated immunization is an example of government overreach.
“The state doesn’t own your children,” Paul said in an interview with CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” “Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom and public health.”
The Kentucky senator and potential 2016 hopeful received attention earlier in the day for his comment that people should be able to pick which immunizations to give their children.
It would be nice to not have that be a controversial statement, assuming we could dredge it up out of the vaccination debate, which has turned entirely toxic. (No pun intended.) Hillary Clinton was unintentionally correct when she titled one of her books, It Takes a Village. The problem is, that the title should have gone on to say, but only a village. Clinton was essentially arguing the opposite point (that society, and by default the government, was responsible for children) but a more accurate reading of that sentiment holds some truth. Parents are the primary stakeholder who bear full responsibility for the welfare of their kids and control over how they are raised. But in addition, a solid community with good neighbors – who are also good parents – and a solid church and positive social interactions can really add to the chances a kid has of making a go of it.
As to the vaccine question, I haven’t really wanted to dive into that particular pool. While I’d love to have the luxury of being an absolutist, there are a couple of things the government can and should do, assuming that citizens monitor them to ensure the government does them well. One of those is preventing massive depopulation through preventable (or at least containable) diseases. If there is insufficient education out there to ensure that kids are getting established, proven vaccines for dangerous, highly communicable diseases, then yes… I think mandating them is a good idea. It’s not that different from enforcing a quarantine on aid workers returning from Ebola stricken areas. It may looking like robbing the liberty of an individual, but it’s a safety measure to ensure the continuity of the entire herd.
With that said, I may disagree with Rand Paul on that one side issue, but he is at least making the point that in the vast majority of other cases, the government needs to defer to the wishes of the parents when it comes to raising children. And if the children fail, the question of where to place the blame is fairly easily answered.
You will see opponents and proponents on both sides of the aisle.
For conservatives, if you don't want to vaccinate, you better not send your kids to public school because you don't make the rules there.
All UR kids r belong 2 guvment
Stopped clock, right twice a day.
I’d prefer the Child Propaganda Institutes (public schools) didn’t teach SEX EDUCATION.....do we have a CHOICE in that??? I am not against vax....just question the amount and timing of them in babies under 36 months....and I think others are questioning the same....AND...also not trusting the government (CDC, FDA) on their pronouncements of anything concerning vax. Plus, I still keep wondering...if a child has gotten vax....why are the parents worried about the non-vax children....isn’t it the non-vax children’s parents who should be worried?
Parent decision A leads to health risk RA
Parent decision B leads to health risk RB
RA >> RB
Cost --> zero
At what point does the state criminalize the parent who chooses to expose child to risk?
What!?
How Dare you question the unlimited power and authority of the government!
[/sarc]
RE: At what point does the state criminalize the parent who chooses to expose child to risk?
I guess the state has to exercise WISDOM when they exercise their extraordinary powers ( good luck with that ).
This article makes an observation:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/02/03/confessions-of-a-conservative-vaccine-truther/
Take the current controversy over measles. From the looks of the forums on the internet out there and the comments sections under just about any vaccine-related article, you’d think we were talking about the bubonic plague.
In fact, measles, despite being highly contagious, isn’t particularly dangerous. So long as your immune system is in decent shape, you’ll be fine. In fact, you might actually want it, as exposure leads to lifetime immunity.
Measles is basically a fever with an accompanying rash. It’s true that in the 1800s, outbreaks caused tragically large numbers of children to die — but these were concentrated in orphanages and hospital wards (places where malnutrition was rampant). As the world prospered, affluence spread, and health improved, in the U.S. the chances of dying after contracting measles dropped to 1-2 percent by the 1930s. By the time a vaccine was introduced in 1963, deaths from measles were virtually nonexistent. Asthma, according to “Vital Statistics of the United States, 1963,” claimed 56 times as many lives.
Today it’s popular to argue that measles would be totally defeated were it not for the Jenny McCarthys of the world. The only problem is that the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine does not actually immunize — as most people understand the word — against measles. The most we can expect is temporary protection. That’s because vaccines are injected directly into the body, bypassing the body’s natural immune response. “Most disease-causing organisms enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract – not through an injection,” explains Dr. Joseph Mercola. “These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system.”
Initially described as lifelong insurance, health officials realized in the ’70s, when an uptick in measles diagnoses occurred among vaccinated high-school students, that the vaccine should probably be administered more regularly. The CDC now advises receiving the vaccine at 12-15 months, 4-6 years, and again as an adult. The U.S. is also using its third version of a measles vaccine, after the first two proved ineffective.
Which should probably make it no surprise that many of the people catching measles today were vaccinated. Today’s measles cases are occurring in heavily vaccinated populations. When a 2006 outbreak among college students in the Midwest struck, the fact that most of the affected were vaccinated seemingly made no difference. When an outbreak of the mumps hit the NHL this year, many reflexively blamed “anti-vaxxers.” Almost no one reported that every affected player appears to have received the MMR vaccine. The Penguins’ Sidney Crosby received not only the initial MMR, but also a booster just before the Sochi Olympics. The director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Paul Offit, would only say “we know that the short-term effectiveness of the mumps vaccine is excellent.”
Still, none of this would suggest there’s any reason to avoid regular vaccines — were it not for side effects. And here comes another wrinkle: The MMR vaccine can itself give you measles. In 2013, measles began spreading in British Columbia after a two year-old girl contracted the virus from the vaccine, and then began spreading it to others. Though rare, there are other risks worth considering, too: According to the CDC, side effects to MMR can range from minor (fever, mild rash, swelling), to moderate (seizure, temporary low platelet count), to major (deafness, long-term seizures, permanent brain damage). Note that the latter two categories are worse than the disease itself. Perhaps a bigger problem is how these vaccines weaken the immune response among undernourished patients. “In developing countries, the use of high-titre vaccine at 4-6 months of age was associated with an unexpectedly high mortality in girls by the age of 2 years from infectious childhood illness,” a study reported in the British Medical Journal.
As recently as the 1970s, the CDC recommended children receive four vaccines. Today, per CDC protocol, children can receive around 40 shots between birth and the age of 6. What if that number grows to 100? 500? Will it always be unreasonable to ask, “Is all of this really necessary?”
Finally, this may come as a shock, but it’s actually possible for the government and the medical establishment to get things wrong. This year the CDC admitted its flu vaccine was created for the wrong strain — yet Americans are being instructed to get the shot anyway. Indeed, some parents are being threatened with having their children taken if they aren’t given this (almost certainly) useless flu vaccine. For more than a generation Americans were told to avoid as much as possible saturated fat, salt, and calories in general. More recent science shows that salt consumption has no causal relationship with blood pressure; eating healthy saturated fats like grass-fed butter is good for your heart, brain, and metabolism, and calories are actually a form of energy that gives us life.
Assigning responsibility for your children’s health and well-being to others — even “experts” — is precisely the opposite of parenting. Asking questions, educating yourself, soliciting more than one opinion: these aren’t the behaviors of people to be condemned and vilified. When someone insists you submit to the expertise of others, they’re actually asking you to stop thinking for yourself. And that’s a mistake. Vaccines, like so much of life, are more complex than a simple good-vs.-evil analysis affords. Universal solutions rarely work universally. Parents are right to do their homework.
Back in the 1950s and 60s, the US Government tested virus sprays in NY subways to see how fast it would spread.
A few years ago, Al Quida was found to be operating labs in the Sahara testing various viruses. One was so bad it killed everyone associated with it so the lab in a cave was plugged.
Do we REALLY want to take a chance on some Terrorist caused virus outbreak in the US because of not vaccinating?
Any terrorist today has access to a microbiology lab to make a GMO virus or bacteria. It’s considered trivial to alter one to be ‘brand new’ and not covered by the vaccine.
Most of microbiology lab grad students at US colleges are from either China or the Middle East. More than enough knowledge base there to do the trick. And the equipment and materials are easily had for less than $1500.
This is why the US (and Russia and China and Israel) have extensive antimicrobial agent development programs. Ostensibly to fight ‘the next flu pandemic’. They know that any GMO microbe will likely be unaffected by any vaccination program and the time to product distribution for a vaccine would give the bug a 6m lead time.
Something to think about, though. Most of our vaccines are made in China. Including those given to our military. It wouldn’t be totally unfeasible for the Chinese to alter measles to make it pass right on by the vaccine immunity of our population and military, whilst also putting the altered version into their own military to protect them.
if a company receives federal money, it must cater to ALL members of society... REGARDLESS of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, race, etc
likewise, a federally supplied agency must provide its services to ALL members of society.
i guess you have no idea how vaccinations work.
the vaccination will work only against the specific virus or those closely related.
a virus developed in a cave would have a low probability of being stopped by previous vaccines
If the virus is created in a lab, there won’t be a vaccine immediately available.
Agreed, but I was stunned to learn how many states allow not only allow exception for religious reasons, but for personnel beliefs.
Link to MAP
Gardasil for HPV comes to mind .... big pharma wanted it mandated - $$ for them. This is sexually transmitted, not airborne. There was a lot of concern about the vaccine .... then Rick Perry goes and mandates it for TX via executive order. I do not trust the drug companies and politicians - this is why I think parents should make the choices.
That being said, you don’t vaccinate your kid, then you are responsible for the consequences of that choice, one of which may be that your kid can’t go to public schools, etc.
This is pretty easy.
If you want your kids protected, vaccinate and they WON’T get the disease.
If you don’t want to vaccinate, fine let your kids get sick.
If you have a child that has an immune deficiency keep them home. Why in the world would you let your child go to school anyway if their immune system can’t handle a cold.
Don’t force me and mine to do your government’s bidding. I still believe some vaccines make children sick and hurt or kill them.
FINALLY someone stands for freedom.
Wrong. Doctors are not always right. The medical profession doesn't know everything. My daughter received vaccinations against most well-known illnesses, including chicken pox. She got chicken pox. Her doctor was stunned, and said "Oh well, she'll never have to worry about getting that again!". A few years later, we brought her into his office telling him it looked like chicken pox. He said it can' be, but quickly reversed himself after examining her. Then he said "Well it looks like you can get it multiple times after all." He wasn't a newbie, but an authority on childhood diseases and the president of the SF Health Commission. He was the guy other doctors went to for advice.
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.