4 ms·

I am afraid I fall into one of these extreme camps. I don't see room for a gray area on this issues like I can on other issues. I see no practical downside and

by sqeaky 10y ago

I am afraid I fall into one of these extreme camps. I don't see room for a gray area on this issues like I can on other issues. I see no practical downside and lots of benefit to vaccines. Children, plural, Children have died in my home city because of this anti-scientific attitude and the "serious side-effects" are either non-existent or so rare as to not be worth discussing. There is no link with autism, and this is the main point that most anti-vaxxers use. Once you get to real side-effects you get to things that literally have around a 1 million chance for mild side effects, and much less frequent for serious. The risk of most diseases is much higher than the the risk of its vaccine, so it makes sense for that individual and it makes for the population. I really don't see any wiggle room on this one and I don't understand this recent softness towards anti-vaccination. When real deaths are on the line in much higher percentages than any real side-effects there is definitely a moral high ground. Let's revisit the vaccine issue one the diseases are gone, I don't see a need to vaccinate in North America for smallpox or polio and if we organized well we could make that the case for many other things we vaccinate for.

coding123 10y ago
Here is the gray area, for a gander: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/bob-sears/what-cdc-statistics-say-about-vaccine-illnesses-in/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/... This article is Pro-vaccine and agrees with the reported death count in 2014, for example at 122. In the case of vaccines I live completely in the gray areas. For example, there are something like 80 vaccines automatically given to children. Why don't we limit that to the vaccines that are absolutely necessary? Also pet vaccines, totally important to not over-vaccinate. Many of them include adjuvants that have a high correlation to sarcomas that appear in the injection site, cause cancer and kills the pet. My wife worked in vet hospitals and there was a much much lower rate of pet killings in the clinics that use adjuvant free vaccines.
- tmoertel 10y ago
  I'd like to read more on the cancer and pet vaccines issue. Can you point me toward any good journal articles?
pokapulation 10y ago
If we can acknowledge that compulsory vaccination is coercive, or, on the flip side, that vaccination in general is an opportunity to perform a service to society then fewer people will be tempted by the anti-vaxxers. Which would be a practical benefit.
sgt101 10y ago
I can see where you are coming from; and I am pro-vaccine in the sense that I had my children vaccinated in line with government / health service requests and guidelines. In fact we also opted to have my daughter given an extra vaccine for meningitis that was not indicated at the time but has subsequently become mainstream. However, I think that you may be a bit out in some of the views you have written here. Have a look at this site : http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-side-effects.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-side-eff... 1:1000 for a seizure is a long way from 1:1000000, and yes I would and did prefer to run that risk rather than the risk of Measles which is an appalling disease, and I would prefer to sleep knowing that I've not only protected my child but also other children. But I did this with the honest knowledge that there was a risk. My brother suffers from seizures - this is a bad thing to have happen to anyone. I believe my fellow citizens deserve the same chance, and I believe that they will come to the same view as me if given the opportunity. >When real deaths are on the line in much higher percentages than any real side-effects there is definitely a moral high ground. One thing that changed my views here was holding my child in my arms; things stopped being about percentages and trade-offs and became centred on the welfare of the small person who could not protect herself. We are asking parents to be altruistic; in society we are not obliged to be altruistic as we are obliged to be moral - it's a gift, not a requirement. For example you could say that parents are obliged to make sure that all the children in the city have eaten before they feed their child, but human society and human rationality just don't run that way. We are neither angels, nor automata.

by sqeaky 10y ago

coding123 10y ago

Here is the gray area, for a gander: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/bob-sears/what-cdc-statistics-say-about-vaccine-illnesses-in/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/... This article is Pro-vaccine and agrees with the reported death count in 2014, for example at 122. In the case of vaccines I live completely in the gray areas. For example, there are something like 80 vaccines automatically given to children. Why don't we limit that to the vaccines that are absolutely necessary? Also pet vaccines, totally important to not over-vaccinate. Many of them include adjuvants that have a high correlation to sarcomas that appear in the injection site, cause cancer and kills the pet. My wife worked in vet hospitals and there was a much much lower rate of pet killings in the clinics that use adjuvant free vaccines.

tmoertel 10y ago
I'd like to read more on the cancer and pet vaccines issue. Can you point me toward any good journal articles?

pokapulation 10y ago

If we can acknowledge that compulsory vaccination is coercive, or, on the flip side, that vaccination in general is an opportunity to perform a service to society then fewer people will be tempted by the anti-vaxxers. Which would be a practical benefit.

sgt101 10y ago

I can see where you are coming from; and I am pro-vaccine in the sense that I had my children vaccinated in line with government / health service requests and guidelines. In fact we also opted to have my daughter given an extra vaccine for meningitis that was not indicated at the time but has subsequently become mainstream. However, I think that you may be a bit out in some of the views you have written here. Have a look at this site : http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-side-effects.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-side-eff... 1:1000 for a seizure is a long way from 1:1000000, and yes I would and did prefer to run that risk rather than the risk of Measles which is an appalling disease, and I would prefer to sleep knowing that I've not only protected my child but also other children. But I did this with the honest knowledge that there was a risk. My brother suffers from seizures - this is a bad thing to have happen to anyone. I believe my fellow citizens deserve the same chance, and I believe that they will come to the same view as me if given the opportunity. >When real deaths are on the line in much higher percentages than any real side-effects there is definitely a moral high ground. One thing that changed my views here was holding my child in my arms; things stopped being about percentages and trade-offs and became centred on the welfare of the small person who could not protect herself. We are asking parents to be altruistic; in society we are not obliged to be altruistic as we are obliged to be moral - it's a gift, not a requirement. For example you could say that parents are obliged to make sure that all the children in the city have eaten before they feed their child, but human society and human rationality just don't run that way. We are neither angels, nor automata.