2 Votes
RE: ok... but whose freedoms are we talking about? and aren't we ALL "weak" ?
Kathy again ;)
Ok – I may be in a little over my head here, as clearly you have researched this more than I have on the “anti” side of things. My opinions come from my time as a pediatric nurse and my own logic. I would love to research the other side more. That being said, I still have some thoughts (sorry, actually a lot of them) about your reply, ignorant as those thoughts may be.
<Vaccine effectiveness and unintended consequences are key, in my mind.>
I am with you on inintended consequences, but I have my own spin on it. First of all, there is absolutely no way to predict what those unintended consequences are – or who will be affected. There doesn’t seem to be any undeviating pattern or sure link that the problems you mentioned are directly correlated to vaccines. There are so many other factors and variables – I am not sure if a clear causal link could ever be established. We would need an extensive group of unvaccinated people in a longitudinal study covering years to have any type of unbiased information. (So perhaps that is where you turn to the past for that type of information, prior to vaccines – but I will get to that in a minute.) On the other hand, when we look for a causal link for vaccines preventing death and disease, we find it – and that link is difficult to dispute.
Sooo… I can still see why there would be questions in your mind, or even why you might feel a sense of hesitancy to vaccinate. But this is where your point about unintended consequences comes in. All of the consequences you mentioned are not life-threatening. Life-altering, yes. Quality-of-life-threatening, yes. But when you look at the unintended consequences of not vaccinating, you see life-threatening. This is where people have to think about which unintended consequences they are willing to live with: possible asthma or autism from vaccinating, or possible death from not vaccinating. Neither side is guaranteed to happen, of course. But when you talk about taking risks, I would rather take the risk that my child could end up with a side effect than chance that they could catch a preventable disease and not live through it. But that’s just me…
Ok- on to using the past to make choices about not vaccinating.
Admittedly, I have no idea where you got this information and it could be true. But in my mind, I just don’t see how we could know if this is true. Did they even have the capability of knowing what Polio was at that time? Was there any way to centrally report it, even if they did know? And if so, how many actually did report it to said central agency? I think it is more likely that random people died from it (not outbreak style, mind you) and it was neither diagnosed nor reported, than to think that no children died from Polio. But whatever. Let’s say it is true. The world we live in has obviously changed. We are in bigger cities and closer quarters. Since we have first-hand knowledge of what could happen in TODAY’s society by not vaccinating (1950s outbreak), we can conclude that a possible side effect from receiving a Polio vaccine would be preferable to contracting Polio itself.
<it seems well documented that disease outbreaks sometimes occur in highly (or completely) vaccinated populations.>
YES! Imagine what the consequences would be in unvaccinated populations. The outbreaks you are talking about in no way rival outbreaks of the past – in numbers or in fatalities. I am willing to admit that this is not a perfect system. But I am also willing to see that it is protecting us from massive outbreaks and fatalities.
<It also seems clear that vaccine-induced immunity is not as effective/strong as natural immunity>
True, if you live through it. You might not get the opportunity, shall we say, to acquire that type of immunity.
<then everyone can relax and leave the vaccinations to those worried about being infected (i.e., those who see themselves as likely to get a disease they won’t be able to handle with available medical care).>
Yeah – newborns and small children really need to ge informed about this to make an educated decision. This choice would obviously be in the hands of their parents. And what parent really knows if their child “is likely to get a disease” or if their child will “be able to handle it with available medical care.” ?? No one can possibly predict that. And furthermore, vaccines ARE avaiblble medical care. That’s all we got. Medical interventions for viruses (virii?:) are limited. That is why conventional medical treatment for deadly viruses is prevention through vaccination.
That is all :)
RE: ok... but whose freedoms are we talking about? and aren't we ALL "weak" ? by Brandon
Apparently it takes being stuck on a boat in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico to allow me to finally reply. (Sorry for the delay.)
There doesn’t seem to be any undeviating pattern or sure link that the problems you mentioned are directly correlated to vaccines. There are so many other factors and variables – I am not sure if a clear causal link could ever be established. We would need an extensive group of unvaccinated people in a longitudinal study covering years to have any type of unbiased information.
Agreed.
On the other hand, when we look for a causal link for vaccines preventing death and disease, we find it – and that link is difficult to dispute.
I think the link to preventing very specific things is clear. It’s the collateral damage that’s in question – and I think that has the power to sink the whole operation. Remember, we aren’t talking about preventing death and disease for the vast majority of the population; we’re talking about establishing herd immunity so the very few who can’t be immunized won’t be exposed to the disease. It’s not as if that isn’t a noble cause, I just think we have to remember what we’re comparing here.
I would rather take the risk that my child could end up with a side effect than chance that they could catch a preventable disease and not live through it. But that’s just me…
I don’t think we have to pick one of those. Consider the world before modern day sanitation – back when everybody ate a little poo, contracted polio, and then either dealt with it (99.8% of people, according to Scottb), or didn’t (0.2%). What was it about those 0.2% that made them unable to deal with the disease? Clearly 99.8% of people are able to handle it on their own. Would it not be better to determine the nutrient that was lacking, the system that was malfunctioning, or whatever – and then seek to eradicate the disease that way?
I’m not saying it would work. I’m just saying we’re trying to trick an immune system that has been honed over centuries – and there’s more than one way to go about doing it, and we can’t expect there not to be consequences when we make approximations (e.g., changing the disease strength, changing the method of contraction, adding preservatives, giving at the same time as other weakened viruses).
Since we have first-hand knowledge of what could happen in TODAY’s society by not vaccinating (1950s outbreak), we can conclude that a possible side effect from receiving a Polio vaccine would be preferable to contracting Polio itself.
Is the 1950s representative of today’s society?
I am willing to admit that this is not a perfect system. But I am also willing to see that it is protecting us from massive outbreaks and fatalities.
I don’t think that’s always the case. Take chicken pox, for example. When I was a kid, almost everyone got it. Most people had mild symptoms and got to miss some school. Then, in 1995, the government recommended all children be vaccinated for chicken pox … and ten years later researchers started finding complications related to shingles (which is caused by the same virus). Some researchers even say there would be more shingles deaths caused by the vaccine than chicken pox deaths saved. If they’re right, there is clearly not a net gain here.
You might not get the opportunity, shall we say, to acquire that type of immunity.
Right. But consider what we’re comparing here. On one side you’re guaranteed not to get that immunity. On the other, you know that if you don’t keep yourself healthy, your body might not be able to handle a disease you might get. I contend that the latter is true whether or not you get the vaccine.
And what parent really knows if their child “is likely to get a disease” or if their child will “be able to handle it with available medical care.” ?? No one can possibly predict that. And furthermore, vaccines ARE avaiblble medical care. That’s all we got. Medical interventions for viruses (virii?:) are limited. That is why conventional medical treatment for deadly viruses is prevention through vaccination.
I don’t think it’s that mysterious of a thing. As we can see from the polio and chicken pox examples, almost all children can handle those viruses just fine – without any medical intervention. Why do those small percentages have such a hard time? Probably because their immune system wasn’t strong. Why wasn’t their immune system strong? Well, that could be for any number of reasons, and I bet nutrients, exercise, toxins, mental stability, etc. play big roles – and that’s a lot more at our disposal than vaccines.