<p>Not true. Please reread my posts about epidemic diseases already in decline at the time vaccines were introduced. Whether this is true or not, it was a factor in my decision. My decision was based much more on an understanding of the natural cycles of diseases, and factors other than vaccinations such as diet, immune system and hygiene, than on whether entire populations were vaccinated or not. If my views were dependent upon other parents vaccinating their children, I wouldn’t be suggesting to them that they research the issue and reconsider, now would I?</p>
<p>“Natural cycles of disease”? Still waiting on some kind of reputable source for all of these claims. Now, I do agree with you regarding improved hygiene and living conditions improving disease rates, but that’s absolutely not the reason, and not even a majority of the reason, why many communicable diseases disappeared.</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>Wow. So if you take a perfectly healthy child, and enroll him in peewee soccer so that he gets lots of additional exercise and builds muscle and stamina, then he becomes less healthy? I guess the same logic likewise applies to flouride on his teeth.</p>
<p>Right 1of42, that is the whole debate on Simpsonwood and why Varestratten claimed that although it could not be proven thimerosal was dangersous, he also said it could not be proven it was not dangerous, yet the vaccines were not immediatley pulled out of circulation. They continued to deplete the shelves till it was gone, then instituted flu vaccine for pregnant women that had the full dose of thimerosal , as well as the Rhogam shot also for those the are RH- full dose of thimerosal. </p>
<p>I do believe one is deluding oneself if they believe that everyone within CDC/FDA is on the up and up.</p>
<p>You can’t prevent getting sick during pandemics or with infectious diseases by depending on good hygiene, although good hygiene is a plus. Infectious diseases affect people with compromised immune systems more than those with normal ones, but those with healthy immune systems can get mighty sick too. That “logic” doesn’t fly.</p>
<p>The point is, that if all parents researched and drew your particular conclusion, your son would be at risk, because the whole population would be at risk. I don’t know why it is so hard for you to accept that you can only make this selfish decision BECAUSE of herd immunity (and you never did answer the travel abroad question, which is really quite a telling one…no problem though, since I know the answer!).</p>
<p>Well, this next one is quite old, but it’s one of many ‘primary’ sources that you asked for. At least the figures of mortality should be accurate, since its publication was soon after the event.</p>
<p>Yo, Cartera45!!! (Jeepus, I was at school working today - you guys are great arguers…) Anyway, Cartera - what’ s this you say about the Veterinarians thinking of splitting doses in animals??? Please tell us more, give a few links. That is fascinating.</p>
<p>Yes leal, we know it’s his decision, but that’s a cop-out answer and you know it.</p>
<p>In an effort to make you not avoid what you must know is the real thrust of the question, allow me to add something:</p>
<p>If you were moving, with your son, to a country with significant rates of communicable diseases eradicated in the US by vaccination and other means, would you get him vaccinated?</p>
<p>1of42, your focus on attacking me personally is offensive. You and I had a heated discussion about abortion in the Ron Paul thread and reached an amicable compromise. That was quite an accomplishment, given the volatility of the topic. I’ve very disappointed that you are not willing to show me the same respect that I showed for you in that thread. Your insistence that I answer to you about my personal decisions, and my son’s (who isn’t even present to speak for himself!) is akin to me badgering you with questions such as “Well just how far along would you have an abortion? Would you have an abortion if you were just a bit tight on paying bills? would you? would you? C’mon, answer now! Would you have a partial birth abortion? would you? Would you force your daughter to get an abortion if she got pregnant at 13? would you?”</p>
<p>I didn’t do anything of the sort. I never once attacked you personally but instead spoke in terms of generalities and concepts.</p>
<p>The only reason I shared any of my personal views at all regarding vaccinations was in the hopes that it might help those with opposing viewpoints to have some understanding of why some parents choose not to vaccinate. Just as with the abortion issue, in which you and I made great strides towards understanding, I am a firm believer that whenever there is a conflict, BOTH sides should seek understanding. BOTH sides should make an effort to at least UNDERSTAND the other viewpoint, even if they don’t agree. It’s the secret to a harmonious coexistence on this planet.</p>
<p>But, instead of trying to understand, you have used my words in attacks against me personally.This is completely uncalled for and I’m not going to participate anymore. you see, damned if I do and damned if I don’t. If I say ‘yes we’d selectively vaccinate’ then you will accuse me of being selfish and benefiting from the herd immunity. Whereas, if I say ‘no we still would not vaccinate’ then you will undoubtedly accuse me of child abuse. So you see, there is no way you would understand my decision, whichever it was, and it would just give you ammunition for more attacks.</p>
<p>I’m not going to answer any more of your questions because my personal decisions are none of your business. I am appalled at the tackiness and rudeness being displayed by someone I thought I respected despite our opposing viewpoints. (other people were rude too, but there wasn’t necessarily any respect there to begin with.)</p>
<p>leal: You consider it a personal attack. You don’t want to answer the question.</p>
<p>Interesting, but not particularly surprising.</p>
<p>My main argument against your stance on vaccination is that if everybody did it, we would be worse off, and thus it’s an essentially selfish, untenable position. Which is why I keep asking you whether you would act the same way if you lived in a country with rampant communicable disease.</p>
<p>I’m interested in knowing the answer to that question, because it’s important to the argument. Are you arguing against vaccination because you believe it to be irresponsible in all cases, or merely in the case where a person (hey look, I’m not even saying ‘you’ here!) can rely on the herd immunity of others?</p>
<p>If it’s the former, then you’re beyond hope of being changed by this debate, in my opinion - if the evidence of the incredible amount of good done in this world by vaccination doesn’t sway you, then nothing will. If it’s the latter, however, then you’re making an argument that only works if you intend to free-ride. That means, by definition, that it is untenable.</p>
<p>That’s my point. Feel free to be offended by it, but if you don’t answer the question you’re significantly weakening your own argument. And, offense aside, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t - you either believe one way, or you believe another. I’m interested in knowing which. Unless you agree with my analysis of the outcomes, asking the question itself cannot be offensive. So are you implying that you agree with my analysis? Or is this outrage an argumentative tactic?</p>