<p>IF you believed something was potentially catastrophically dangerous for your child, would you do it anyway, effectively sacrificing your child, for a questionable ‘good of the many’?</p>
<p>(Whether you believe vaccinations are dangerous or not is irrelevant for the purpose of exploring this hypothetical question.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your challenge is not the same as mine. My challenge to you was in response to YOU making accusations at ME (I don’t care about the rest of the population, I believe in junk science, I am endangering my child, etc.)</p>
<p>Have I said even one word about YOUR choice to vaccinate your children?</p>
<p>No, I have not.</p>
<p>Therefore, I do not owe you anything. I am not required to answer your challenge. What I would choose to do in those circumstances is none of your business. Just as what you would choose to do is none of mine. I posed my challenge to you in an attempt to get you to see this from another person’s perspective.</p>
<hr>
<p>Hey, 1of42, have you noticed that we seem to be on opposite sides here than we were on the abortion debate? In that debate, you told me that what a woman does with her body is no one else’s business, regardless of whether the fetus is actually a baby or not (translate: regardless of whether anyone else is harmed or not).</p>
<p>Yet, here you are telling me that how I raise MY children is any of YOUR business!</p>
<p>The idea of spreading out the vaccinations intrigues me because that is what I am seeing vets start to recommend for horses because of the number of adverse reactions to vaccinations. They typically get a bunch in one day too. Some of the things happening in human medicine have been done by vets for years.</p>
<p>That’s a straw man argument, leal. Obviously if someone thinks that doing something to their kid is going to harm them, they won’t do it. Our argument was never that someone should do something despite believing it would catastrophically harm their child. We argued (and are arguing) that vaccines aren’t catastrophically dangerous, and so you’re not behaving in a rational way by refusing them.</p>
<p>So, given that your challenge is answered, answer mine: go live in a part of the world where preventable illnesses that have been eradicated by vaccination are running rampant (without your son being vaccinated), and then tell me how your calculus of risk is working out.</p>
<p>Ah, so there is the misunderstanding. Not sure how you missed that! Sorry I didn’t make it clear. I thought I did!</p>
<p>Please allow me to clarify:</p>
<p>When I made the decision to not vaccinate, it was because I was more terrified of the vaccines than I was of the illnesses (with the exception of tetanus). So, obviously I believe them to be harmful!</p>
<p>Wait, I think I DID say that very thing in an earlier post. Perhaps you missed it. </p>
<p>And, we are not in sync in our debate. Again you have misunderstood me. It was never my intention to argue that vaccines are dangerous. I honestly do not know whether they are or not! I’m not qualified to say.</p>
<p>So, you are playing solo tennis here. I repeat: I am NOT arguing that vaccines are dangerous!</p>
<p>I am merely arguing for my right to not vaccinate my child, if I think they are potentially harmful to him.</p>
<p>Actually, I’m not even interested in the debate as to whether they are harmful or not. I am only interested in retaining the right of parents to not vaccinate their children, whether for religious or health reasons or whatever, without being ostracized or accused of child abuse.</p>
<p><edit>Oh, and I am also interested in legitimizing the discussion as to whether they are harmful. In other words, although I’m not particularly interested in the debate (as to whether they’re harmful) itself, I AM interested in seeing those on the side of the minority treated with respect and not considered ‘wacko’ or ‘hysterical’ or ‘believing junk science.’ I’m not really interested in the debate, but I AM interested in arguing for the RIGHT of parents to debate it! </edit></p>
<p>1of42, most smart people would do a risk/benefit analysis and if they went to a country that was crawling with diseases they’d vaccinate. </p>
<p>The question is does it make sense to vaccinate for diseases that are uncommon/non-lethal, especially when babies are cared for at home and breast fed. There are plenty of sane, sound reasons to delay/space out some vaccines, and to skip others altogether. </p>
<p>In other first world countries the vaccination schedules are quite different than in the USA; at least when my kids were snmall they certainly were. Are these countries irresponsible regarding child health? Can there potentially be a better, less risky program than the one advocated by the AAP ?</p>
<p>Again, Leal, you can only argue for your right NOT to vaccinate your child, because the rest of us do.</p>
<p>If everyone in the US followed your example (and I am not talking about what SBMom mentions, in terms of spacing out or using a different vax schedule, but categorically refusing vaccinations on principle), we would have a nation of sick children. Catastrophic diseases like measles and whooping cough would become the norm again. </p>
<p>So, I am back to my original point. You want the respect with regards to your decision. I am not giving it to you, because it was a decision you were able to make ONLY because the rest of us vaccinate our kids. </p>
<p>And your child’s lack of ear infections is irrelevant to the discussion. I can go head to head with you on organics any day.</p>
<p>This is getting a little tiresome. Do you think it isn’t obvious to me that leal did a risk/benefit analysis based on how America is now? Obviously she’s thinking “but these diseases are almost nonexistent, so even the small risk I think vaccines pose is too great.”</p>
<p>My point is that if everyone made the same judgment as her, we’d be destroying our population immunity. I guarantee you that as a society we would be far, far worse for it. In fact, if even a large minority didn’t vaccinate (no, I’m not qualified to give an exact number, but it would have to be enough that currently vaccine-protected infections diseases were able to find a solid foothold and cause pandemics) we’d be in very, very bad shape.</p>
<p>At that point, the risk calculus would be very different. But what’s the point in getting there? If everyone makes the risk analysis based on how we are now, probably a large number will conclude as leal did. As more and more people make that decision, we will eventually get to an equilibrium where the risks of vaccination are balanced by the risk of disease. Since vaccination risk is (for those who aren’t bent on ignoring medical evidence) extremely low, equilibrium should be reached somewhere very close to full vaccination. However, the natural hysteria effect of pronouncements about “poisonous vaccines” and the like (which has claimed deaths already) will tend to overstate the risks of vaccines, to the detriment of society.</p>
<p>So, SBMom, that is my point. The risk calculation of “well, these diseases are rare, almost non-existent in America, so I won’t vaccinate” is untenable, and to spread the hysteria about vaccines is completely irresponsible.</p>
<p><sigh> I agree it’s getting tiresome.</sigh></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. I might very well have made the same choice even if no one else vaccinated. You cannot presume to understand all my reasons for the choice I made, or presume to know what choice I would make in different circumstances.</p>
<p>The current state of affairs regarding health & disease in this country is what it is. Neither you nor I did anything to contribute to whatever factors were in effect 50 or so years ago.</p>
<p>We ALL make risk calculations based on our own particular environment and whatever factors come into play. Do you feel guilty when your children ride the bus to school, knowing full well that your parents had to walk 5 miles in the snow, barefoot?</p>
<p>You STILL have not answered my question! Whether YOU think I should vaccinate is irrelevant. Whether YOU think vaccines are safe is irrelevant. The question is, IF you DID think vaccines were unsafe, would YOU sacrifice YOUR child?</p>
<p>Please answer my question before you throw any more accusations my way.</p>
<p>As for mentioning my child’s health, the ONLY reason I mentioned it was in response to these statements by 1of42:</p>
<p>This whole discussion is really lame, actually. Aren’t you people concerned with the mutated viruses that scientists predict may hit us at any time? What about all the infections like staph that are becoming stronger due to antibiotics abuse?</p>
<p>I could throw your argument back at you, ya know. How many times have you given your child antibiotics? Hmmmm… well, I could argue that YOU have endangered MY child because of YOUR actions, since every time you gave your child antibiotics, it contributed to the bacteria becoming stronger and more resistant to antibiotics.</p>
<p>I, on the other hand, have NEVER given my child antibiotics. Nope, not once. I used herbal alternatives and other things that I won’t even mention (so as not to start another debate).</p>
<p>So it could be argued that, in the case of bacteria (as opposed to viruses) the tables are turned, and <em>I</em> am the one being ‘responsible’ and <em>you</em> are irresponsible. </p>
<p>It’s been known for several decades that using antibiotics makes the bacteria stronger, and we’ve been cautioned to not use them unless absolutely necessary. Did you hesitate and take that into account the last time you gave your child antibiotics for an ear infection? Did you think about its effects on the rest of the world? How it might mean someone else’s child dying, in some distant future, because the bacteria had become resistant, contributed in part by your desire to heal your child? Or were you mainly concerned about his fever and him being able to go to school the next day?</p>
<p>Do you see how silly this is getting? Honestly, I would NEVER blame YOU for giving your child antibiotics, if that’s what you thought was appropriate.</p>
<p>Think about this double standard that you are projecting.</p>
<p>Use of antibiotics widely in the environment is what causes widespread resistance, generally. That and use of prophylactic antibiotics in hospitals.</p>
<p>Using antibiotics conservatively, to treat serious infections, is in no way the same thing as that, and it’s also not the same thing as not vaccinating.</p>
<p>If the whole society used antibiotics conservatively (or even hugely overused them), we’d be - well, what we are now. If nobody used antibiotics… well, we had that in the 1800s. Worse than what we have now.</p>
<p>If the whole society didn’t vaccinate, well, I’ve already explained that.</p>
<p>Incorrect. ANY use of antibiotics, whether in hospitals or in homes, contributes to the bacteria becoming resistant. The effect is cumulative.</p>
<p>Some 20 years ago, scientists were surprised to discover that bacteria evidently ‘communicate’ with other bacteria in different parts of the world. A particular strain of bacteria suddenly developed resistance to an antibiotic in, I believe it was Tokyo, at the exact same time that the same strain developed resistance in a test tube in an American city. This was documented and has happened numerous times.</p>
<p>Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a very real threat. Each time a person takes antibiotics, it contributes to their becoming resistant, and, therefore, affects the rest of us who might need antibiotics for a life-threatening infection.</p>
<p>“Whether YOU think vaccines are safe is irrelevant. The question is, IF you DID think vaccines were unsafe, would YOU sacrifice YOUR child?”</p>
<p>I fully admit that I’m not as educated as many of you, so I need this explained to me. Are you saying that you think the vaccinces are more dangerous than having your child contract these diseases? I can’t imagine that. The death rates for wild instances of measles, et al., can be quite high, where the death rates for vaccinations is quite small. But maybe I’m misunderstanding? May I also ask another question? Do you give no vaccines, Leal? Tetanus, anything at all?</p>
<p>Please substantiate that, leal. You’re saying that bacteria were shown to somehow communicate resistance without ever being genetically related? Are we talking about psychic, supernatural communciating bacteria now?</p>
<p>As for the drug resistance being cumulative, it’s not quite that simple. The presence of antibiotics acts as an evolutionary pressure. So, if you have bacteria in the presence of the drug long enough without all of them dying, some will eventually mutate and become resistant, and spread. I shouldn’t need to point out that if all of the bacteria are killed before any such favorable mutation occurs, no cumulative resistance develops. Which is why when used in a conservative fashion, antibiotic use really doesn’t contribute much (if anything) to antibiotic resistance. It’s the overuse of broad-spectrum drugs on patients who don’t need them, and the inclusion of antibiotics in animal feed, that are the real problems.</p>
<p>But this is still a straw man argument, because if everyone stopped using antibiotics in order to protect against drug resistance, we’d be worse off than still using the antibiotics and dealing with the resistance other ways. Whereas if we all stopped vaccinating, we’d be worse off than we are now.</p>
<p>How many times do I have to point out the difference before you understand it?</p>
<p>I have no idea how they somehow communicated or IF they communicated. And I’ll ignore your cheap shot about psychic bacteria. All I know is what I read. It was a scientific journal and the scientists themselves were baffled.</p>
<p>It’s irrelevant which is ‘worse.’ It was an analogy about blaming other parents for their decisions. You missed the point.</p>
<p>How many times do I have to ask you to answer my question?</p>
<p>“I, on the other hand, have NEVER given my child antibiotics. Nope, not once. I used herbal alternatives and other things that I won’t even mention (so as not to start another debate).”</p>
<p>Well, if you use herbs, in fact you are giving your child antibiotics. The very first antibiotic used in humans came from a very natural source. Scientsts still mine marine organisms and tropical plants for new sources of antibiotics. Not all of them have the therapeutic window that would allow human use. Lots and lots of pharmaceuticals have “natural” origins, aspirin being the most commonly known.</p>
<p>I understand your feelings against vaccinating your child when he was an infant/toddler, but I don’t understand why you continued to object when he was older. Why didn’t you have him vaccinated at age 17, for example?</p>
<p>Again: The difference between me judging your vaccine decision and someone judging the antibiotic decision is that if everyone didn’t vaccinate, the world would be worse off, whereas if everybody used antibiotics… the world would be exactly the same as it is now. Nice try at the analogy, but it’s fundamentally flawed.</p>
<p>Show me something that someone else does (or doesn’t do) that affects me negatively and we’ll examine the calculus of benefits, and if you’re right about the issue I’ll agree with you and start judging them to be irresponsible, in the same way that I’m judging vaccine refusers to be.</p>
<p>I don’t know of any herbal antibiotics. Herbs work by strengthening the immune system, not killing bacteria. If you know of any, please inform me. Colloidal silver is claimed to be a natural antibiotic, but it is of course controversial, and it’s not an herb.</p>