Do You Think Childhood Vaccinations Should Be Compulsory?

[Trillian]

No, why would I do that? You said that you would be interested to hear what they have to say, but would be extremely sceptical. I am saying that people should be no more sceptical of the AVN than what they should be of Big Pharma - Both should be treated with equal amounts of caution.

[LimeSlice]

As I said in previous post- DO SOME RESEARCH.

It isn't hard to find the evidence, studies and peer reviewed science- not anecdotes btw - that back the anti-vac movement.
If it were perfect then every doctor in the world would agree with it - fact is, they don't.

Have a look into what happened to the Aboriginal populations in the 1970s when the Government forced them all to have WC vaccinations if you want some proof of why people are skeptical of vaccinations as the be all and end all.

I also suggest you do some research into the origins or the scientific premise behind vaccination in the first place and Pasteur's work as it was. There are fundamental flaws in the theory - that's what immunology is based on, theory, not fact btw - and again you will find some good arguments for not vaccinating.

If you look, it is there - and like Trillian, the AVN featured nowhere in our decision not vaccinate our children.

So far you have offered no references or basis for your opinions either, so to say that as we offer none is proof we have no ide what we are talking about is hypocritical to say the very least. If you want to understand (not convert) then do the research like we all did and you will find WHY people decide the way they do - and it IS valid - both medically and philosophically.

[Yeddi]

...diseases adapt when they are allowed to grow in sick people, like conscientious objectors children.

Gross! I consider this the same sentiment as Hitler and his "dam dirty Jews" who spread disease like rats. It's completely unsupported and asinine.

Also, your use of terms like "basic stuff" and "that's how stuff works" is condescending and implies that you think I'm a fool, and again need "correcting" or "educating". I asked for you to expand on your comment in the spirit of binary discussion, as your brevity failed to properly communicate your meaning. My 4.0 would imply I'm not an idiot, and I would appreciate language that was open and that didn't try and diminish my opinion just because it is different from yours. It's a dirty tactic and I'm not the only one you've taken on such a presumptuous attitude with.

What cause would there be for a disease to mutate in a child who isn't immunised? If an unimmunised child gets a disease it either kills them, or they build a natural REAL immunity for LIFE. Also, unlike artificial immunisation, immunity built naturally can also be passed on to their own children to varying degrees. (Did you know that how we smell to the opposite sex is a direct reflection of our natural immune system and whether it is similar or different? Those with opposite immune systems smell better than those with similar ones - because opposite immune systems build stronger children.) If there is any huge mutation of a disease, it would be where the status quo has been unnaturally or dramatically changed that requires that disease to also change as a direct result. If there was to be a mutation that was natural (in which it occurred because it was left to its own devices) then the human immune system would also adapt in kind. But all (and you can look this up - I've downloaded it from BMJ but can't find where I've saved it ATT) of the known mutations at this time are found ONLY in those immunised. What you are saying is "basic stuff" isn't actually supported by the evidence.

[Inanna]

Yeddi you rock.

[LimeSlice]

Gotta spread the love Yeddi, but had to say that was fabulous

[willow5]

Yeddi

[Trillian]

Not to sound like a creepy stalker or anything, but Yeddi, I think I have a crush on you LOL.

[Inanna]

Wow I've tried to read the thread in it's entirety.

I don't immunise my children. I don't do this as I have witnessed vaccinations "go wrong". I have also experienced the reaction of my oldest daughter as I chose to delay her vax & remove whooping cough from her vax. My daughter is ASD.

I don't know why she is ASD - but she reacted severely to the vax & she is ASD. Was I going to risk my other kids? NOPE.

My youngest daughter was born at 27 +5. I was told that I was risking her death by not immunising her at 38 weeks when she was transferred from her tertiary hospital back to our regional centre. I did not immunise and later found she was immuno compromised and vaccination could have caused severe and life threatening issues.

I don't know the answers - but RockinSAHD I think it's important to be respectful & gentle of others views. Most parents make decisions from a place that is the best for their child. We all make mistakes, we all err but we're trying to do our very best for our little people.

Compulsory vaccination goes against basic human rights. Nobody has the right to inject me or my children without my consent & it would be a black day if anyone tried.

[Inanna]

Trill me too, me too! Tell me you're a man who loves Rumi, has a wonderful relationship with his mother, is spiritual & has worked on his inner child & I'm on a plane!

[willow5]

thats the idea behind science, it can prove things wrong but never right, so eventually we gain knowledge.

I'm sorry but I disagree there RockinSAHD.
Science is built on scientific method, a theory is only accepted if the objective evidence supports it, otherwise it only an opinion.

Science can prove that the stars shine because of nuclear reactions, but it can't disprove that thousands of Americans (random example) have been abducted by aliens. Even though it's unlikely, but that's just an opinion. As was your statement above, so it's very possible that a lot of your statements are just that, an opinion, not fact or the "way stuff works"

[Kamarine]

Gross! I consider this the same sentiment as Hitler and his "dam dirty Jews" who spread disease like rats. It's completely unsupported and asinine.

Also, your use of terms like "basic stuff" and "that's how stuff works" is condescending and implies that you think I'm a fool, and again need "correcting" or "educating". I asked for you to expand on your comment in the spirit of binary discussion, as your brevity failed to properly communicate your meaning. My 4.0 would imply I'm not an idiot, and I would appreciate language that was open and that didn't try and diminish my opinion just because it is different from yours. It's a dirty tactic and I'm not the only one you've taken on such a presumptuous attitude with.

What cause would there be for a disease to mutate in a child who isn't immunised? If an unimmunised child gets a disease it either kills them, or they build a natural REAL immunity for LIFE. Also, unlike artificial immunisation, immunity built naturally can also be passed on to their own children to varying degrees. (Did you know that how we smell to the opposite sex is a direct reflection of our natural immune system and whether it is similar or different? Those with opposite immune systems smell better than those with similar ones - because opposite immune systems build stronger children.) If there is any huge mutation of a disease, it would be where the status quo has been unnaturally or dramatically changed that requires that disease to also change as a direct result. If there was to be a mutation that was natural (in which it occurred because it was left to its own devices) then the human immune system would also adapt in kind. But all (and you can look this up - I've downloaded it from BMJ but can't find where I've saved it ATT) of the known mutations at this time are found ONLY in those immunised. What you are saying is "basic stuff" isn't actually supported by the evidence.

Well said.

[PollyA]

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?

This question is the heart of the debate.
The protection of the population relies on Herd Immunity. For Pertussis as an example the Herd Immunity is 93%. Once the level of population vaccination falls below 93% EVERYONE including immunised children are at risk of contracting the disease.
Imagine if you had made the decision to immunise your child only to have them die of a preventable disease as a result of the decision of others not to vaccinate? This is the counter argument to the arguments made by those who have, or believe they may have, suffered adverse effects from vaccines. I am not discounting either side of the debate, just trying to highlight that there are two sides. The stats, at this time in history, favour immunisations as having less risk but I realise that if you are the one that has an adverse outcome that is 100% awful for you so stats are of little comfort.
We are lucky in this country to have very little living memory of the awful effects some othe diseases that are now vaccinated against.
It is offensive to me when Doctors are demonised. Watching a child die of pneumococcal meningitis or become paralysed or brain damaged by HiB meningitis is awful. Doctors are at pains to promote vaccinations NOT becasue they are pandering to big Pharma (many are off patent now anyway) but because they are trying to protect their patients from harmful disease and the many suggestions of other reasons cited as fact on this and other threads are hugely offensive to me. I am an ethical, holistic, caring doctor who empowers my patients to make their own decisions and supports them even if their decisions vary from my recommendations.

Vaccinations are not without risk And this is why they cannot be compulsory. I would not support making them compulsory
BUt please when imploring others to do their research and check their facts, be prepraed to do the same

The schedule is not without controversy and there are some vaccinations that do not attract support from the entire medical community such as Varicella and MEningococcal/ However if you could visit a country such as Samoa and see the children dying and sufferring immensely from diseases such as Mumps and HiB you might feel differently.

[Yeddi]

Trill me too, me too! Tell me you're a man who loves Rumi, has a wonderful relationship with his mother, is spiritual & has worked on his inner child & I'm on a plane!

LOL, Sorry the only balls I have a metaphorical.

This question is the heart of the debate.
The protection of the population relies on Herd Immunity. For Pertussis as an example the Herd Immunity is 93%. Once the level of population vaccination falls below 93% EVERYONE including immunised children are at risk of contracting the disease.

I did have a really good response to this with references and everything, but then my computer battery died and I lost it all, so I'll just recap in the brief. The Dutch had an outbreak of Whooping Cough in the 90's despite having an immunisation rate over 96%. They also are not the only country to have had this happen. Those who were NOT vaccinated were not affected at all - so it's not like they caught it and passed it on - it was only those who were vaccinated who got it and passed it on. That's concerning.

However if you could visit a country such as Samoa and see the children dying and sufferring immensely from diseases such as Mumps and HiB you might feel differently.

Being ex-military I am not ignorant of the world. I've been places, I've seen things - including those effected by disease. To me, no disease can compare to the cruelty one human can inflict upon another (hence the reason I find the attitude other's have displayed that it's okay to remove another person's basic human rights of choice so disturbing - because it doesn't take much from there, everything is justifiable in some shape or form).

Anyway... while your point about the Soman's may seem valid initially, when its put in context it loses a lot of its strength. There are so many variables there that would effect their chances of catching disease, to what degree and then their recovery - from particular biology, education, resources, hygiene etc. The lack of vaccination is not the only factor. If those who are pro-immunisation want to make a point regarding the benefits of herd immunity with some sway you have to make a like for like comparison, where the lack of vaccination is the major, if not only factor that differentiates the two. I can do that for my side of the fence - there are a number of western countries (New Zealand for instance is one) that have much lower immunisation rates than Australia but have exactly the same level, if not less, of disease. If you could do the same to the opposite I would be interested in hearing it, because so far I've only ever been given 3rd world or undeveloped community comparisons.

[PollyA]

LOL, Sorry the only balls I have a metaphorical.


I did have a really good response to this with references and everything, but then my computer battery died and I lost it all, so I'll just recap in the brief. The Dutch had an outbreak of Whooping Cough in the 90's despite having an immunisation rate over 96%. They also are not the only country to have had this happen. Those who were NOT vaccinated were not affected at all - so it's not like they caught it and passed it on - it was only those who were vaccinated who got it and passed it on. That's concerning.



Being ex-military I am not ignorant of the world. I've been places, I've seen things - including those effected by disease. To me, no disease can compare to the cruelty one human can inflict upon another (hence the reason I find the attitude other's have displayed that it's okay to remove another person's basic human rights of choice so disturbing - because it doesn't take much from there, everything is justifiable in some shape or form).

Anyway... while your point about the Soman's may seem valid initially, when its put in context it loses a lot of its strength. There are so many variables there that would effect their chances of catching disease, to what degree and then their recovery - from particular biology, education, resources, hygiene etc. The lack of vaccination is not the only factor. If those who are pro-immunisation want to make a point regarding the benefits of herd immunity with some sway you have to make a like for like comparison, where the lack of vaccination is the major, if not only factor that differentiates the two. I can do that for my side of the fence - there are a number of western countries (New Zealand for instance is one) that have much lower immunisation rates than Australia but have exactly the same level, if not less, of disease. If you could do the same to the opposite I would be interested in hearing it, because so far I've only ever been given 3rd world or undeveloped community comparisons.

My point about Samoa retains some validity in fact when you look at their vaccination schedule. They cannot afford to vaccinate against mumps or hib but do vaccinate against measles and rubella amongst others. The diseases not vaccinated against as well as rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease fill their under resourced hospitals

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

But how much is that to do with basic hygiene matters PollyA? Are they on the same 'level' as us when it comes to personal hygiene and water issues? I didn't think they were, could be wrong, but that would be a major reason for diseases spreading in unimmunized countries.

[Inanna]

Polly great post & I share much of that thought also. The reasons you listed to vaccinate is why I did choose to vax my eldest daughter - though I chose to delay the vaccinations.

I also agree that we cannot & should not paint the medical fraternity as the bad guy here. This is a debate on weather vax should be compulsory - thankfully it would seem that most people believe that an individuals human rights should not be taken from them. Which is warming.

[slyder]

But how much is that to do with basic hygiene matters PollyA? Are they on the same 'level' as us when it comes to personal hygiene and water issues? I didn't think they were, could be wrong, but that would be a major reason for diseases spreading in unimmunized countries.

Oh, nice one! Not.

[Inanna]

Keike no they do not have the same level as hygeine as we do here in Australia. Due to sanitation, water etc etc. This does impact on how disease is spread.
However this is secondary to the absolute fact that unless a particular level of vaccination exists (it's different for each disease) the immunity of the majority is at risk.

Yes,in a third world country the risks are higher due to all of those factors.

As I have posted before I have seen the impact of "preventable" illness & it is scary - this is why for me I chose to delay vaccinating my child (my eldest) but it was important to me to consider the populus as well. However, when my daughter reacted severely to immunisation I changed my stance.

Tetanus spores are prevalent in the ground especially where I live. Whooping cough outbreaks happen frequently - I have watched a small child die of whooping cough I am NOT ignorant to the devastation caused by these illnesses. For me though watching my daughter scream & the vast change in her post vax I made that cautious decision. I say cautious as I often often often question myself. Each time there is a pertussis outbreak. Each time a measles outbreak occurs.

This is why SAHD you will not necessarily find hard core evidence. Often it's the evidence of Mothers speaking of what they have seen. I am educated. I am intelligent. I am travelled. I am well read. I also have children & one of those children fitted, reacted & changed noticeably post vax & has been diagnosed on the spectrum. It was enough to frighten me and wonder... Is our genetic makeup such that my children are more predisposed to reacting to this vax? Is there more to this?

It is erroneous to believe that unless there is tangible evidence something cannot be. It's also dangerous IMO. I have a disorder that causes me to lose my babies in the second trimester of pregnancy. We don't know what it is as it hasn't yet been named! We just know because after losing 2 daughters and 1 son I was deemed to have: "an antiphospholipid syndrome type condition".... When treated as though I have APS I can be pregnant. Without treatment I form clots & have had 2 cardiac arrests as a result. But all my tests come back clear.

Do you see SAHD that not everything can be scientifically proven? It's not that simple. Your language has induced some to believe that you feel they have made fickle decisions. Whilst I could not of course comment on others. I can assure you that I have yet to meet a Mother (or Father) who has chosen not to immunise on a whim.

Again to enforce a vaccination program on people could never occur in a democracy for it goes against the bill of rights. It goes against basic human rights. It's just an outrage to even consider it a possibility.