Do You Think Childhood Vaccinations Should Be Compulsory?

[Miss.September]

The problem is that if you don't vaccinate everyone then you might as well scrap the program and welcome all the diseases that we vaccinate against.

Thats the whole point of this thread. Its all or nothing.

Its unfair to compare Thalidomide and vaccines.

The whole point of this thread was to vote on the poll and share your comment. So on one hand you seem to really believe strongly that it should be made compulsary (and yes, I'm making an assumption here, basing my thoughts on your posts, feel free to correct me!) but you also said that "I understand the issues with VitK and would have rather my babies not had it, though I understand this complicates what i'm saying!"

So I guess I'm just curious - do you want the choice taken away from you or not?

Sorry if that has come across really narky, I'm just curious.

[RockinSAHD]

They are motivated by love to search for answers, to lift every rock, examine every clue

I love my children, and I do all that I can to protect them!

I glossed over some issues that I though irrelevant. BTW I work in an environment where i'm at high risk of getting Hep B, I have been tested, have you? I stated already that I don't support compulsory vaccination but I also pointed out that if almost all people aren't vaccinated there is almost no point and having a vaccination program.

I have no grace and tact because this is a serious issue and I am a man.


THE REAL ISSUE: Vaccinations kill, maim and destroy lives but that they kill, maim and destroy many, many less lives than the diseases they can prevent. The question here is can we deal with that, not as parents, but as world citizens? Do we have what it takes to save these lives if it means taking more? Can we have that on our collective consciousness?

[Sopdet]

If you didn't blow the whistle on something that affected the lives of that many people, Sopdet, because of an NDA... I can't even begin to describe how unethical that is!!!

Want to re-read what I wrote instead of talking out of an orifice that you shouldn't be.

I said what I've seen would change the way people think, didn't mention effecting lives at all. I have an extremely high level of ethics, you do not know me, you do not know what type of work I've done in the past or even what work I'm doing now, which I might add is quite inane but is still covered under a confidentiality agreement.

I probably get tested more regularly for a lot more things than you do, due to previous work, travels and family history. I've probably also been vaccinated for things, in adulthood, that people wouldn't even contemplate being vaccinated against.

[RockinSAHD]

I'm not attacking you Sopdet, or your ethics. I do think that its a real issue though when people spout conspiracy theories without serious consideration as to what that means (I know you personally weren't spouting conspiracy theories either!)

Its not a comment to be made lightly that governments are involved in major conspiracies, it's a serious issue with serious consequences and I feel that people in this forum use these comments lightly.

Major worldwide conspiracies involve billions of $'s and many many bodies in rivers, not just a judicious choice of funding.

[Yeddi]

They are motivated by love to search for answers, to lift every rock, examine every clue"

I love my children, and I do all that I can to protect them!

That comment was directly related to searching for answers to autism and current lack of useful research on the disorder. It was specific to the search for evidence behind the syndrome and was not a general statement about vaccination and shouldn't be taken as such. The connections between the effects of yeast on the gut and brain, and multiple does of a vaccine made on yeast is too coincidental to be ignored but this is a link that is only just begun to be properly researched by the "establishment" but research takes time (I think the normal sample is 7-10 years) and then you've got to have peer reviews and they need for back up studies because one is not enough - the list goes on. Those who are at high risk of autism don't have the luxury of waiting for the scientific community to rubber stamp parental experience.

BTW I work in an environment where i'm at high risk of getting Hep B,

Then you would have to make your own decisions on what the risk/benefit ratio is for your children personally, and that would go for every disease that has an immunisation available, but I would never assume to make them for you.

I stated already that I don't support compulsory vaccination but I also pointed out that if almost all people aren't vaccinated there is almost no point and having a vaccination program.

Why? Why does it have to be all or nothing. If immunisation is the begin all and end all that some people seem to think it is, then it's the children who are NOT immunised that would be at risk, not the one's that are. If your kids are immunised then they're protected, right? Unless this is a subconscious concession that immunisation isn't the protection it's sprouted as being... What then?

THE REAL ISSUE: Vaccinations kill, maim and destroy lives but that they kill, maim and destroy many, many less lives than the diseases they can prevent. The question here is can we deal with that, not as parents, but as world citizens? Do we have what it takes to save these lives if it means taking more? Can we have that on our collective consciousness?

Lovely socialist sentiment, but completely useless in practice. The only possible way this could work is if EVERYONE does that for EVERYONE else on EVERY issue (not just limited to immunisation). It's a utopian ideal made of glass, and completely denies human nature and our individuality - we're not made to be battery hens that live in a world that only has universal truths. Most things are subjective and their outcomes directly linked to fluid particulars, because the world and people don't exist in a vacuum. I do not make decisions for other people, I make them for myself, because first and foremost I am the one that reaps the consequences of those choices, not others.

[Phteven]

This thread appears to be going downhill fast. Please don't make us get the padlock out.

[RockinSAHD]

If your kids are immunised then they're protected, right? Unless this is a subconscious concession that immunisation isn't the protection it's sprouted as being... What then?

This is really basic stuff, immunisations are only effective if almost everyone gets immunised. This is what I'm trying to say, its an important point.

I have lain my life and the lives of my precious children at the feet of our (somewhat flawed admittedly) immunisation schedule in the knowledge that it might kill me or them in order to increase their chances of surviving and living long productive lives and to help other people get the same chance. That is what immunisation is about, thats what society is about, THESE are decisions we make.

But people don't understand these things, they just don't want their kids to get sick.

[Lulu]

Well that's very noble of you rockin dad. I still reserve my right to choose, and refute the idea that non vaccing my children means I am spreading disease and preventing others living long lives.

ETA - and by the way, I don't mind if my children get sick. They have already caught measles and mumps from a largely immunised playgroup, but I nursed them through it and made sure it wasn't passed on.

[Yeddi]

This is really basic stuff, immunisations are only effective if almost everyone gets immunised. This is what I'm trying to say, its an important point.

Then explain it fully - no more "man" headlines, give some details on why you think immunisations will only be effective if everyone gets done.

Because from this, I get the feeling you are under the assumption that man (as in human kind) can wipe out all disease through immunisation. Again, a lovely sentiment - it really is, but it's not practical. That's what they thought about antiseptics and antibiotics until their expansive overuse created "super" bugs that are far more dangerous than the original. Diseases, virus, bacteria etc. are living organisms - they will adapt and evolve (the whooping cough mutation shows they already are).

[Trillian]

Trillian, I cannot believe that someone who really understands the issues and risks wouldn't vaccinate. Reading the AVN website is not educating yourself, there are lots of issues with vaccinations but most aren't on peoples radars. If people for and against focussed on the real issues we could have safer vaccines and safer communities.

Please show me the part where I said I read the AVN website and based my decision on what I read there? I have never visited that site ever and I take offence at it being suggested that I did when you do not know me, you've been a member here for less than a month and you are making assumptions on people you do not know. Maybe if you took the time to read a few of my other posts in this thread you would have seen that I have been a parent who vaccinates, I just chose to stop.

[willow5]

I have never heard a good reason not to vaccinate on the commercial media but I see the AVN and people like them regularly.

I am currently still researching and not yet decided on whether we will delay or not vax DS3 at all (just so you know my stance ATM) I have a 16yr old and an 18yr old both vaxed as per schedule. I have never visited the AVN site either. But I wouldn't have thought that the "commercial media" was the best source of completely trustworthy and unbiased information on any subject.

[RockinSAHD]

I haven't seen a website that shares unbiased and accurate anti-vaccination advice, I would be interested in hearing what they have to say but extremely sceptical. I have read your posts Trillian, but as I said, I haven't seen this information so assume that its no better than You Know Who.

Yeddi: Immunisation works on the assumption that we can wipe out diseases and immunisation is a very different idea than antibiotics. Apparently wiping out diseases is impractical: diseases adapt when they are allowed to grow in sick people, like conscientious objectors children. The lower the immunisation rate in a population the more the diseases will adapt, thats how it works

Antibiotics treat disease, immunisation and antiseptics prevent disease. Also basic stuff. Immunisation doesn't create superbugs, using antibiotics to treat diseases that should be wiped out by good public health measures creates superbugs.

[Trillian]

Then why did you assume that I based the decision on what the AVN have to say? I am fully aware that the AVN are probably considered the lunatic fringe of anti-vaccination, but are they to be treated any more sceptically than Big Pharma should be?

[Lulu]

So how do you explain the massive outbreaks of Whooping Cough in areas with the highest vaccination rate?

[Miss.September]

The joke with Whooping Cough is the immunisation is only good for 30 years. But we (as in my family) didn't know this until six odd months ago when my mum got it. That's when her doctor told her she should have been reimmunised. Only 25 odd years late!!!!! So because it isn't widely known that the immunisations wear off (and I'm talking the older generation here) I guess that's why its on the increase again too. So not only are immunisations important to begin with (should you decide that they are), then so are the boosters 30 years later.

[Shanti]

That is why we rely on science.

Science can get it wrong too. They trial alot of things all the time... quite often we're guinea pigs and we don't even realise it!!

[deletedit]

Keeping little babies away from catching things is very easy

I disagree. I find it impossible to keep bugs out of the house. The only way I could do it is to send my school age child to another state until the baby is also a tweenager. EVERY disease I've caught in the last 7 years or so has come from her, from either daycare or school. Its easy when you only have one child and neither parent works or does shopping, though, but that would be unusual. Having a very sick 2 week old baby is no fun

Back on topic, I'm for compulsary vax. But with concientious objection. So not much different to how it is now, once you factor in all those financial incentives to vax.

[RockinSAHD]

We should all be very sceptical of science and very very sceptical of big pharmaceutical companies. Science quite often gets things wrong, thats the idea behind science, it can prove things wrong but never right, so eventually we gain knowledge. Its an imperfect tool for an imperfect world. Just like immunisations.

Show something different and you'll change the world, but probably your going to show me some anecdotes again...