<p>Actually, I didn’t say that latter “even if others thought it was harmful to THEM.”</p>
<p>That would depend entirely on the situation.</p>
<p>However, you still haven’t answered my question: if you were going to live in a country crawling with communicable diseases that you are protected against in America by herd immunity, would you get your son vaccinated? (Assuming, for the purposes of the situation, that he’s a minor at this point)</p>
<p>All right…look at it this way, Leal.</p>
<p>In Africa, Asia, South and Central America, the South Pacific, Middle and Far East, living conditions and standards of sanitation and hygiene can vary greatly, depending on where you are.</p>
<p>Would get (or have you son get) a malaria shot (or take malaria pills) or innoculations to protect again cholera or yellow fever, if you were traveling? How about gamaglobulin, to protect again the very dangerous hepatitis? Without immunization in typhoid and tetanus, travel to third world countries would be exceptionally dangerous for you or your son. </p>
<p>Do you and he plan to simply stay put in your herd immunized America, or risk travel abroad unimmunized?</p>
<p>(The question is fairly academic, because you wouldn’t be allowed into most of these countries without an International Certficate of Vaccination…good thing you love the US of A).</p>
<p>leal-</p>
<p>Allmusic has an excellent point. I wonder if much of your decision is based on the risk present in your environment. If it isn’t, and you would still not vaccinate while living in a “third-world” environment, then I would call that border-line child neglect.</p>
<p>post #108 - I said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post #101 – I said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>post #103 - 1of42 said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Allmusic, 1of42, Bay: you are so caught up in criticizing my choice that you are missing some very good points brought up by samiamy. You fail to see your own hypocrisy. I invite you to quit with the judgmental attitude and spend that time investigating the info samiamy has provided. I have repeated myself several times and still you miss my point. I suggest you re-read post #144 several times. This answers your question. I will spell it out again: We each make our decisions based on weighing out the particular situation we are faced with. There are many other factors in foreign countries to consider besides whether the people there get vaccinated or not, such as sanitation, etc. all of which contribute to the overall situation one would be exposed to. I am not required to give you a detailed reason for every decision I MAY encounter in my future. If my son travels, I trust him to make the decision that is appropriate to him at that given time. </p>
<p>Bottom line is that you have admitted that you would not do something harmful to your child, no matter what, yet you still persist in judging me for making the same decision you would have. I repeat: post #103 1of42 said:
</p>
<p>1of42’s words:</p>
<p>Obviously if someone thinks that doing something to their kid is going to harm them, they won’t do it.</p>
<p>Obviously if someone thinks that doing something to their kid is going to harm them, they won’t do it.</p>
<p>Obviously if someone thinks that doing something to their kid is going to harm them, they won’t do it.</p>
<p>Obviously if someone thinks that doing something to their kid is going to harm them, they won’t do it.</p>
<p>Do you see your hypocrisy now?</p>
<p>I have said all I wish to say on this. Carry on.</p>
<p>I would like to take up leal’s question: yes, I would subject my child to risk of harm for the greater good, if I thought that was the right thing to do. While a selfish risk/benefit analysis might argue for not vaccinating my child, as long as most other persons do so, I think it is immoral to endanger the overall health of society to avoid the small risk to my child that vaccination presents. Similarly, if my son is drafted into the military, I won’t urge him to flee to Canada. It would be his duty to serve, even if it poses a grave risk to his personal well-being. I also pay my taxes, even though I could probably get awaying with cheating on them. People who seek to enjoy the benefits of society while allowing others to bear all the risks are known as “free riders.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.rescuepost.com/rescue_post/2007/08/a-parent-seizes.html[/url]”>http://www.rescuepost.com/rescue_post/2007/08/a-parent-seizes.html</a></p>
<p>Just keep an open mind to the entire picture </p>
<p>For some people vaccines are damaging.
If one has a family history of autoimmune disorders then caution should be excersized. </p>
<p>A Parent Seizes The Science, a Child’s Seizures STOP
By Kent Heckenlively, Esq. </p>
<p>One of the more common accusations leveled against the community of parents who believe vaccines are at the heart of their children’s neurological problems is that we don’t value science. This was probably best expressed by the headline of an article in The New York Times from June 25, 2005 which declared, “On Autism’s Cause, It’s Parents vs. Research.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a simplistic and naive reason for not immunizing a child. Driving in a car, flying in a plane, crossing a street, playing baseball or golf, eating raw vegetables, changing a light bulb… Any of those things could harm my child, and I’m not even being far-fetched! Do you allow your child to do those things? Why or why not?</p>
<p>Decision we make about our children are generally made on a risk/benefit analysis. You don’t want to admit that the risk to your child of not immunizing is small in the USA because the rest of us have born the burden.</p>
<p>Exactly, Bay. There are risks we ALL face, every single day. If you were so afraid of risks, you would have to hermetically seal your son in a box, rather than allow exposure to all the potential dangers.</p>
<p>And that is why I also queried as to whether Leal or son would travel to a foreign country, unimmunized. It’s easy to say what you have chosen for yourself, and I will continue to say that you could choose it, because we made that decision easy for you. There really isn’t anything else to say, because that is the bottom line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I should have added as an addendum (that I thought was implied, but apparently not) is “unless there are compelling other reasons to do so”.</p>
<p>In my books, maintaining herd immunity would be a compelling reason to take on the risks associated with vaccination.</p>
<p>So, leal, here is my answer to your question, in full, so my meaning cannot be disputed:</p>
<p>I would not do something that I knew would harm my child, without compelling other reasons, which may include the greater good of a community or country.</p>
<p>leal, answer this question please:</p>
<p>Would you or would you not support all parents not vaccinating their children, and our society descending into one where easily preventable diseases rampage widely? Are you willing to live in society where the negative consequences of making your decision on a whole-society scale are manifest, or are you only willing to make your decision so long as the rest of us keep the un-vaccinated members of the community safe?</p>
<p>If the answer is yes, and you are willing to live in that kind of society, I still consider you irresponsibly misguided in your risk analysis, but at least logically consistent. If the answer is no, and you are only willing to not vaccinate so long as someone else is picking up the burden of herd immunity, then I would say you’re not only being irresponsibly misguided, you’re also being irresponsibly selfish.</p>
<p>A few other ideas to explore: would you get your son vaccinated for TB if he was working in a hospital, knowing that to not vaccinate him could potentially expose frail, elderly patients to a disease that could kill them? (Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it wasn’t required for employment - it almost always is - but merely strongly recommended)</p>
<p>epidemic diseases already on the decline before vaccines were introduced:</p>
<p><a href=“Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide: How to Make Safe, Sensible ... - Aviva Jill Romm - Google Books”>Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide: How to Make Safe, Sensible ... - Aviva Jill Romm - Google Books;
<p><a href=“Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide: How to Make Safe, Sensible ... - Aviva Jill Romm - Google Books”>Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide: How to Make Safe, Sensible ... - Aviva Jill Romm - Google Books;
<p>(scroll down to pages 19-24)</p>
<p><a href=“Society and Health: Sociology for Health Professionals - Richard K. Thomas - Google Books”>Society and Health: Sociology for Health Professionals - Richard K. Thomas - Google Books;
<p>(scroll down to page 161)</p>
<p><a href=“Confessions of a Medical Heretic - Robert Mendelsohn - Google Books”>Confessions of a Medical Heretic - Robert Mendelsohn - Google Books;
<p>(starting on page 143)</p>
<p>The author of the book you cite above is Aviva Jill Romm, “a certified professional midwife, practicing herbalist, and the former president of the American Herbalists Guild.” She clearly has an agenda and as such should not be cited as an objective, scientific source in this discussion.</p>
<p>3 books were cited, not one.</p>
<p>Okay to be fair, if the above can not be cited as objective, neither can the CDC as they monitor adverse reactions and also suggest the schedule. </p>
<p>Conflict of interest, self governing call it what you wish, any organization that self regulates is suspect.</p>
<p>The difference is that the CDC are qualified medical professionals who went to medical school. Not only that, they are subject to governmental oversight (shoddy as it may be), and the CDC isn’t one person, so there is at least some level of professional disagreement within the organization, I would wager. Mrs. Romm, on the other hand, is a midwife (which has nothing to do with vaccination) and a herbalist. Sorry if I don’t quiet see an equivalence in levels of transparency, oversight or legitimacy.</p>
<p>leal: Can you show me a primary source with the information on the supposed decrease in disease incidence prior to vaccination? The only book that contained references has had its bibliography/endnote section excised, and unfortunately I don’t consider books or textbooks authoritative on their own.</p>
<p>You still haven’t answered my questions, regarding what you think society should do as a whole, and whether or not you would suggest that your son not be vaccinated even if not being vaccinated could easily cause others direct harm (hospital work for example). And I’ve answered yours already. So can I get an answer?</p>
<p>More info to be considered:</p>
<p><a href=“Google Scholar”>Google Scholar;
<p>(see 1st 3 links)</p>
<p>1of42, I already answered your questions as much as I’m going to. I am not on trial here and I resent your personal attacks. I want to discuss/debate concepts and ideas, but you insist on confronting my personal decisions. I have already told you that I did the same thing we all do: I made the best possible decision for my child at the time. I do not claim to have all the answers for everyone on the planet for every possible contingency. sheesh, get off it.</p>
<p>As for the primary source, I’m looking for it and that’s how I found the above info. I have not yet found the original book that I read some 19 years ago, but if/when I find it I’ll be sure to post it.</p>
<p>You must recognize that we have a core difference in whom we trust. You already have your mind made up that you trust the medical establishment because they have been trained in medical schools. As samiamy pointed out, the very fact that they have been trained by the medical schools, which are largely funded by the drug companies, automatically creates a conflict of interest. Therefore, the very reasons you give for trusting them are the same reasons I do NOT completely trust them! </p>
<p>To provide another analogy: It’s like arguing with someone who believes in the bible but you don’t. Every time you point out something that conflicst with the bible, the person is going to reject it.</p>
<p>There is an enormous amount of info available from sources other than the medical establishment. But you are not open to any sources outside your religion.</p>
<p><a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;
<p>A bit of history on the Sabin/Salk debate from the 90’s
Again my point when we do not know the state of an infant/child/adults immune system, why does it have to be one size fits all. </p>
<p>I know my grandmother was getting chemo when I was an infant, she was warned not to care for me post vaccinations especially the MMR/ oral polio. The virus is shed in stool post vaccination, so a compromised immune system is at risk. Who has had any immune system check done prevaccination?</p>
<p>leal: My question WAS a concept that I’m debating with you. The whole point of my objection to the action you’re espousing is that if everyone did it, we’d be worse off as a society. You have refused to consider that possibility, and refused to answer my question as to whether or not you would consider it a good course of action if everyone didn’t vaccinate. I’m trying to make the point here that your entire health paradigm is predicated on other people providing immunity to you and your son, and that it’s untenable.</p>
<p>I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your ideas.</p>
<p>As for the latest 3 articles: more quackery.
Are you actually suggesting I take something that makes arguments like:</p>
<p>“Let us presuppose that we can find a perfectly healthy child, one that has not been ill and one that has not been vaccinated. If we were to vaccinate this child with the recommended four doses of MMR, the medical doctors would now say that the child has a “bullet proof” defense against these three diseases. Since we recognize that no one can be more than perfectly healthy, then any alteration in perfect health must result in a subtraction from that state. This healthy child then becomes less than in perfect health and in becoming less than in perfect health, must necessarily have ill health or disease of some sort and in some degree, however minor. It seems obvious that the protective power of vaccination is due to the creation of a diseased state of the body, not because the body was made stronger or healthier. This may seem like a spurious argument, but it does get to the core of how the body operates.”</p>
<p>Seriously?</p>
<p>Regarding the medical schools idea: fine, let’s assume that we can’t take any thought paradigms for granted. The reason I trust the medical establishment is because I come from a family of doctors, and despite all your bleating about the pharmaceutical industry’s influence, I have experienced how doctors actually live and work, and you’d be surprised at how wrong you are about pharmaceutical industry influence.</p>
<p>However, leaving that personal experience aside, I trust the “medical establishment” because they have proven, repeatedly and rigorously through statistical study and so forth that they are capable of treating an array of diseases. On the other hand, when I look to homeopathy, I am given a long list of claims and no proof. Sorry, but as biased as the establishment may be I’ll trust the rigorous proof over nothing.</p>
<p><a href=“The Vaccine Guide: Risks and Benefits for Children and Adults - Randall Neustaedter - Google Books”>The Vaccine Guide: Risks and Benefits for Children and Adults - Randall Neustaedter - Google Books;
<p>(page 37, last paragraph, also starting on page 57…on second thought, just read the whole book!)</p>