Printable View
What's clear is that:
1. That statement has nothing to do with the personal hygeine standards of Samoans.
2. Water borne and mosquito borne diseases are known to be common through the Pacific, and many other parts of the world. Australia has its share of weird diseases too which can be acquired by mosquitos and even from our soil. Many regional communities are on permanent boil water alerts.
3. Scratch the surface, and it isn't hard to find uneducated, Westernised opinions of other cultures.
Hang on a second Slyder. Nobody in this thread has been bigoted. Not that I can see. Keike asked a very valid question in regard to disease in third world country.
This IS NOT about the personal hygeine standards of Samoans. Where did you get that from???? This is about the state of the country's water supply, what disease is prevalent, what health care standards there are.
Samoa has a high level of meningicoccal due to it's water issues. It has typhus. It has cholera and diptheria. Give me a break Slyder and don't make this about something it's not. Nobody is denigrating Samoa! FFS we are saying that the standard in hygeine (meaning in this regard to sanitation issues, availability of high quality contagium free water, health care etc) is an issue as to why disease is more prevalent in Samoa and other third world countries.
I totally agree it's not hard to find bigoted opinion of other cultures - but if that's what you believe you see in this thread I think you need to step back and actually ask some questions of those you are finding uneducated and bigoted. Don't fire off your guns without asking some questions first.
I am not a bigot. I just happen to know something about Samoa and it'shealth issues due to having a friendship with a fellow colleague who worked there and lost her son there. :hug:
I do agree with your statement that human immune systems adapt over time and that this is the best way but for this process to happen people have to die, in large numbers. Our natural immunity has cost millions of lives. I am interested to see your article, I tried to search it but didn't know where to begin. You seem to be telling me that diseases mutating only and have only-ever-happened in immunised humans?:
I talk down to your comments because often they defy my reality. I shouldn't though and I would like to see the evidence. Your comments blow my mind and they are far, far out from where I live. I don't mean to be as offensive as I come across and you might be suprised at how open minded I am but,
I see what I see, I am well travelled and have seen enough sickness around the world.
I do appreciate your comments Inanna, don't think that stories like yours don't pull my heart-strings, I am human and I have children and they get sick and I get scared. I think that its very likely that there is some connection between autism and vaccinations and thats awful but,
I still get and my children get vaccinated, they also get:
- Possibly 5-6 times more likely to get asthma.
- Possibly autism
- Possbly nasty anaphalaxis (DD had a febrile convulsion once and it was awful in ways I cannot describe).
- Possibly MS.
- Possibly sick from the diseases we're immunised against.
- Even if 94% of our neighbours get immunised.
- Possibly paid out by the Steiner kids for not being 'natural'.
- Possibly things we don't even understand yet.
- Possibly told we smell funny by certain well educated forum members...
- Its a long list.
Still we're immunised with boosters too. :o
:
:
Maybe I shouldn't be in here right now (need to check myself) because I am finding this offensive & I know that's totally my issue...
My children go to a school that has more than 80% of the children (recent update) not immunised. I am completely unaware as to which children are immunised. My children dont' "pay out" other kids for not being natural... Rather they empathise when kids get ill. I am sure you're joking. I am also sure that my frame of mind is not jovial so is not reading your post in humor.
I can't smell you - but I am sensing that you are very set in how you feel and see this. I am not so set. I just know that for my kids I cannot vax them becuase of my experiences. I also know that it's a very difficult decision made with out mirth or humor.
Not sure what your postless quotations mean Slyder - personal hygeine standards are arguably lower I guess due to the low quality water. You will note I clarified my position as to why hygeine levels are not the same. Not because Samoans don't wash. But because Samoa does not have the same level of sanitiation, water or health care as our country. If you are trying to twist Keike into a bigot perhaps you should directly question her as to her meaning. I am not the one to do that. If you are trying to allude to me being a bigot then be my guest. :hug:
Also Yeddi that 'the status quo has been unnaturally or dramatically changed' by their being 6.8 billion humans on this planet and a population mobility undreamed of very recently. We live in a disease paradise, the battle lines are changed forever!
Christ, I hope you can't smell me!! Never heard that one before...:
Your senses are a bit off. I am 50/50 for vac (ie. big fat fence sitter/undecided/not sure), but 100% against compulsory vac.
There may be some crossed wires here. I think Keike's comment was poor form, and perhaps I have misunderstood your posts and references to hygeine following on from that. If I have, I'm sorry. And no, you're not a bigot by any means :hug:
OK. Fair enough.:
You sure do have some crossed wires Slyder. You have quoted me in answer to SAHD. He commented on smell. He commented on a number of things & I replied in part. Your highlighted quote from me had absolutely nothing to do with you.
I think it's important before you see someone in poor form to actually ask for clarification. Keieke isn't a bigot either - perhaps she could have phrased her words more adequately, but jumping to the conclusion of bigotry is dangerous & very likely to cause an uproar as you well know. :hug::
I still get and my children get vaccinated, they also get:
Possibly 5-6 times more likely to get asthma.
Possibly autism
Possbly nasty anaphalaxis (DD had a febrile convulsion once and it was awful in ways I cannot describe).
Possibly MS.
Possibly sick from the diseases we're immunised against.
Even if 94% of our neighbours get immunised.
Possibly paid out by the Steiner kids for not being 'natural'.
Possibly things we don't even understand yet.
Possibly told we smell funny by certain well educated forum members...
Its a long list.
As for me being a bigot I won't even go there to respond I won't defend myself but graciously accept your view of my non bigot status! :hug:
However, the Samoans are an indigenous population.
If you look at the effects of disease and also immunisation on indeginous populations you will find very different results than the affects on western or white populations.
Going as far back as the total anilhation of the native South American populations by the Spanish, to the small pox out breaks of the North American Indians and the effects on the Australian Aboriginal population of 'white' diseases....right through to the effects of the vaccinations themselves on the children in the 1970s, the native popultion of the world does NOT succumb to disease the same way whites/westerners do, does not respond to the same vaccines we do, nor do they handle other toxins like we do - such as alcohol and tobabcco (which can be seen in Australian Aboriginal populations, NZ Maori populations and North American Indian population.).
Vaccines are NOT a one size fits all concept, and this is why making them compulsory is beyond dangerous, it would be fatal for many and cause an unknown number if ill-effect in many it is supposed to protect.
For many if not most of the non-vaxers I have discussed this with over the last few years, one of, if not THE, major issue with vaccines is not the concept of immunity or the premis that introducing the bug will cause a (sort of) natural immunological response, but that these injections contain a number of PROVEN toxic ingredients, and we do not accept the given medical excuse that they are in minimal and therefore safe doses.
NOBODY has the right or privildge to decide MY child(ren) will be injected with toxic substances. EVER, for any reason. And I would challenge anyone to physically try.
There will never be total prevention of illness and disease - and nor should there be. There is a reason why nature produces pathogens and bacteria - it is called population control and it MUST occur.
Basic rules in preventing spread of disease go a very very long way - sanitation, hygeine and basic manners - like covering your mouth and nose when sneezing and coughing - and avoiding contact with fluids and blood products. But there are some contacts you will never be able to prevent, and some might call it inhumane, but I never expect or want them too - and yes, some children in the world will die form measles, just like they die form dysentary and cholera, malnutrition and warlord's bullets.
The sooner people accept the disease is apart of the natural world, and the more we try and fight it with certain weapons the stronger they will adapt themselves, the better off we will all be.
:o Wow.
My original question was actually a question. It was mentioned that death rates for immunisable diseases are higher in non-vaccinating countries, to which my question, however it has been misinterpreted, was - how much does that have to do with differing hygeine standards? I was asking what I thought was an intelligent question, and I was expecting an answer, not being flamed.
Inanna, thank you for understanding the meaning behind my rather clumsy words - I'll bow out of this thread now, I'm surprised by how much your comments have hurt Slyder, I'm obviously not intelligent enough for this discussion and so will leave it.
i don't think you need to bow out at all Keike. You were misunderstood & clarification wasn't sought. It's necessary to seek clarification before assuming ill intent - I think by what Slyd has said he feels that way. It's all good o. But please don't assume also. I don't think anyone was saying you are unintelligent. I certainly dom't believe that for a minute. :hug:
No, Keike's comments are there in black and white questioning the personal hygeine of Samoans. I don't think I misinterpreted anything.
That said, I don't see any need to take the bat and ball and go home.
Anyway, whatever, I've said my bit and don't intend to go on about it.
It is important to note there is a significant difference in definition between 'personal hygiene' and 'sanitation'.
I understodf what Keike was saying, and it is a valid question and relevant to disease perpetuation. But the comments based on personal hygiene are incorrect, the phrase that should have been used was sanitation standards and infrastructure.
Certainly no need for dramatics however, simply miswording and misunderstanding, which as adults we should be able to move on from without offence.
LIme, I respect you have your opinion but can you not see that this kind of statement is just as offensive as some of the provaccination debate statements:
Where do you draw the line with arguments such as these?
Premature babies are saved these days by medical intervention- should they be left to die as is the natural order of things? Antibiotics save lives and treat infectious diseases that you speak of, should we give those away too. Such generalisations on either side of the debate are a slippery slope. And statements such as these are much easier to make in a country which has seen a dramatic drop in infectious diseases- you may say living conditions, I may say a combination of vaccines and improved living conditions...either way I find it incredibly offensive to the women the world over burying their babies for a lack of both that you would call infectious disease population control.
I defy you to tell me that if infectious diseases once again became epidemic in Australia and it was your babies and your friends and families being buried you would still hold this view.
I see vaccination as I see public eduation. A privelage. I would never force them on anyone or support them being compulsory as I can see your side, I can see that for some the risks involved may be unpalatable and to force something carrying a risk on someone is assault.
But PLEASE, respect that there are two sides to this debate
Modern Medicine is very particular about evidenece and modern governments do not fund expensive programs easily.
As far as your arguments about Indigenous populations, I trained in the NT and have a passion for Indigenous helath. I worked with the paediatrician who championed the cause of adding pneumococcaal to the schedule after switching off the life supoprt on another child with pneumococcal meningitis. No conspiracy there, just pure desire to stop preventible death. ANd there is no doubt that this particular vaccine reduced morbidity and mortality in Indigenous populations.
Infectious disease are not "white disease" either with a large burden in non caucasion world
This will be my last reply on this topic, I value what BB offers me in terms of support too much to risk going out in a blaze of controversy.
I respect peoples individual opinion, what troubles me is pushing a one sided argument about vaccination with patchy evidence to supoport without respect that there is another side. Before you say I don't respect your side I do... I have repeatedly admiteed it is a two sided argument, but feeling very beaten into submission by the geenral tone of these forums and disprespected. This, is why the pro vaccination side of the argument is either absent or inflammatory.
I don't geneally do inflammatory and i am now understanding where if may come from and many of you may see this post as inflammatory. I apologise.
I could come here daily with support and evidence for "my side" as, hand on my heart, i promise that it exists.
BUt I won't because I don't think this discussion will have a good outcome, so instead i will agree to disagree with the small request to please consider the balance of the argument. Please consider that just as you are disgusted by some pro vaccination statements that are ill thought out, some of the anti statements are equally inflammatory and disrespectful to people
Here Here Limey. :grouphug:
I vaccinate my kids, my choice ;) And if they became friends with unvaccinated kids it wouldn't concern me.
However I would hate to have any choice related to bringing up my children taken away from me - that is just wrong.
Prof Paddy Philips (Chief Medical Officer - SA Health) was speaking on local radio about this on Thursday and made some very valid points about why people should be immunised. He made comment of how due to vaccinations 'Small Pox' only exists in science labs now due to vaccinations 'in the old days' which saw them phased out. Stated that if 3rd world countries had more access to immunisations then maybe not so many children and adults would die from diseases (which vaccinations would have prevented). I couldnt dispute on face value this information as it was stated he obtained it from the World Health Organisation.
However there were parts of the segment which caused me a giggle. A lady called in adamant she had the chicken pox vaccine, but caught it anyway. Professor firstly said maybe that vaccine wasn't given in the first instance, before conceding that 'it is very rare' to still catch a disease for which you've been vaccinated against.
As for Whooping cough - DH and I both had our updates late last year, and geez did that leave a painful lump for 2-3 days!! Ouch.
As always Polly a great reply. I hear you & applaud you. :hug:
You are absolutely correct there are two sides & like you I can see both sides. I remain firmly with my feet in both camps & I can see the pain on non vax. I have also seen the pain of vax. From a mothers perspective and from a patients.
I am very warmed that you could so eloquently and kindly share your perspective. Anyone who is inflamed by your post - well it would shock me if anyone was. :hug:
:
Personally? I don't believe in the human race as it is now. Simple. That is where I draw the line.
I am on the fence over when to let babies go and how early is too early, I am on the fence about IVF and alterntive methods of concepton...All from the same starting point - we are overpopulated. There is a ntural reason why babies are miscarried, why some cannot conceive, why some are born blind or with club feet...and on and on and on.
We are overpopulated.
And there MUST be therefore birth control, death control or both. At the moment, the human race is intent on allowing and assisting everyone in the world to produce offspring, saving every child that is born, preventing everyone from dying and extending the life off all these people. It is simply physiologically unnatural and unhealthy to the ultimate survival of the species.
And no, I don't think that accepting that you will NEVER stop ALL disease or bacteria from existing, simply if for no other reason than it is copletely necessary to the function of all natural organisms.
It may offend people sensibilities because they want to help everyone and hate to see people suffer. So do I. It is paiful to see people who so desperately want children not be able to make them, carry them or birth them; it is devastating to see children dying and wasting; to see 30 year olds dying from cancer...the list is endless.
But none of that detracts from the broaders physiological argument that we CANNOT sustain life the way modern medicine wants too without destroying the race. There is not enough food or water on the planet now.
And seriously, if I read one more "well you wouldn't feel this way if it were your children dying, getting sick...." comment I will scream. I WOULD feel that way. I ACCEPT that people may catch diseases and die, I understand that even common illnesses seemingly harmless can cause death and it is heartbreaking. But it is the way it will be, so PLEASE don't presume that you can "defy" me to feel differently in such a a situation. I have lived with ravaging disease for the last 25 years in more than one form and I am at peace with the devastation it causes and know full well its implications.
Show me the respect of accepting the notion that I am not ignorant who has some grandiose notion of the species but I am a secret hypocrite praying my children don't get sick.
So the question I pose for those who believe in total illness irradication for the entire world forever is this: Once you do that, achieve that Utopian ideal of the disease-illness-free world, how do expect to control the population, when you will have removed one of 2 of the ways species population naturally moderate themselves?
In principle I get your overall argument even if I'm not sold on it (but I reckon it will be more inflammatory than anything I've said!). But what are you getting at re the blindess and club feet thing? Neither condition is terminal, but both can be managed, especially the latter. So are you saying that people with these conditions should be cast off on an ice floe, or left untreated or something?
What is thsi about club feet???
lol Not at all Slyder, simply examples of things hope don't happen to their kids in general. All natural occurances.
Lime I truly love your passion! I think you are unique though in having such a big picture perspective. Most people live in and among the minutiae that is day-to-day life...what's for dinner, how do we pay the bills, how do I protect myself and my family.
The western capitalist model of living is not about the health of the planet, but about the individual consumer and the health of the workforce...why else would workplaces push for flu vaccinations?
Most of us struggle to just meet the demands of our healthy kids, let alone living with the anxiety they might catch a preventable disease...and die! Death is an abberation in our society. It is not normalized, it is marginised and ignored as an elephant in the room, because we all want to be fitter, live longer, look prettier, be smarter, be successful, and not be marred by aging and death... Right? Right?
It's earth shattering to draw attention to the larger view. And I think people like you change the way the rest of us live....eventually.
I agree that it's a pretty progressive view, although generally unpalatable to those who are directly affected by the premise. I have often wondered about the potential detriment to the race of some assisted conception techniques, treatments of various conditions and so on. Although where I finally stand on that I'm not sure.
My interest in the club feet thing is because of my little groovers has bilateral talipes and has, and will need, quite a bit of medical treatment to repair it.
Like I said Slyder, I could have said crossed eyes (like myself) or epilepsy (like my sister) club feet was just a natural and non-preventabel condition I picked out of my head. And certainly non of the argument was directed at casting anyone off anywhere. :)
I too share some of your sentiments Limey (you must have been editing when I replied above!). I do agree with much of your view. I also agree with Slyder that it's probably going to cause more offense than anything that dear Slyd has said... :hug: But I know I struggled with the question about weather I would fight to keep Imogen alive at 27+5 weeks. I actually made some bargains with the devil... I also drew some lines in the sand. However, I very well would have crossed them had push come to shove. Because she was my child.
When she arrested at about 6 weeks after coming home (she was in hospital) I ran from the room & I just shouted to the Universe. Then I did something that was on auto pilot. I went back in and stood holding her feet & told her if it was her journey to stay I wanted her more than she could ever know. But if she had to leave then I would let her go. She came back. I think it was a lesson in detatchment for me. I actually watched her die before my eyes. Seeing your child in asystole is not something anyone wants. To watch her gag on intubation. To watch her small body limp and unresponsive. I actually am almost hyperventilating typing.
So - long winded. But I get the decisions we need to make. I also know that some of what you've said Limey is going to strike a chord of deep resentment in some. But I do hear you & understand that your perspective comes from a deeper & wider view omn humanity. One I do get.
When it came down to it. I wasn't going to not ventilate my 800 odd gram baby. She had fought this long & I had the medicine available to save her. I am not sure if I am a hypocrite, a fake or what. But it was different. I remember holding views that prems that couldn't breathe alone and cost so much to sustain perhaps it was God's way (Universe, Goddess, law of Nature - whatever). Now, I see we have the medicine. I see my miracle eating a freshly baked bikkie as I type & she's wondering why I blubber.
Far out I don't know the answer but I do get you... *going away to rethink my authenticity*
Interestingly I share some of your philosophies but object to genneralisations from the position of privelage that living in Australia gives you:
Would you consider vaccination if your children had 30% chance of dying before they turned 5?
how would you feel if they developed a vacccine against HIV which kills so many?
My view of this is not simply Western and capalist (another poster I know), the population control you speak of is not going to affect the western world but will devestate developing countries. This is why I find your statements are offensive.
War is historically a great form of population control and I find the use of that line of reasoning why War is a good idea abbhorent. Is that the second form of population control you allude to?
Also a good point Polly. If I knew my child had a 30% chance of dying I am still not sure what Id do given my familial history. I also hold the reasoning that war is great population control abhorrent.
We are speaking from the relative comfort of our middle class Australian loungerooms....
So true. Very true.:
Edit: the conversation has moved on somewhat while I typed the below response. I don't agree with the idea of population control through diseases I do question our perception on what it means to be 'disease free'.
We could also add in cleft palate and downs syndrome and many other things pregnant women are 'scared' into ultrasounds over. I am not bagging ultrasounds, just the pathologising of anything that is not 100% perfect.
We have been sold an idea we can be perfect, disease free, syndrome free, cancer free etc as long as we take this pill, or have this screening test or follow the pack.
The whole idea that death, disease and genetic 'mistakes' is preventable is surely only one white, western modern viewpoint, and I really wonder if it makes us happier? Especially when we invest so much time in trying to 'fix' the rest of the world...and often places and races negatively affected by white imperialists or capitalists in the first place.
Now I am really on my soapbox. And for the record, I do vax!
Thank you Inanna :hug:
I know much of what I have said (although I have stated it before a couple of times in varying degrees in relevant threads here) is going to either go over some, or infuriate others. It is not my intention. But there are other considerations than the immediate view of one life, or one family, one community that I believe are just as important in this sort of discussion.
I know I would try and save my children if I had the medicine, but I know there would be a point at which the trauma of those interventions in my mind would be trying to defeat the Law as it was, and I would have to allow myself to let go. And it would be devastating I am sure. :hug:
I don't WANT my child to get polio...measles...dipthiria...or any other one of these illnesses. I don't want her to suffer. Bu tI accept that we all walka path and that it may be hers to suffer an illness at some stage, and perhaps even die from it.
I wouldn't LET her die, but as I said, I am not prepared to work on the fear - based strategy of vaccination - especially when many of the things I am supposed to be vaccinating for are NOT deadly or even serious in MOST cases, although there are sometimes serious complications.
I am not prepared to do this when the chances of her catching said illnesses are less than the chances of her having side effects from the vaccine itself, as is the case for some of them - evenin countries where they are still much more prevelant than Australia.
But at the heart of any mandatory vaccination argument there has to be the core idea of curing disease by prevention. So my above question then becomes immediately relevant and an longterm consideration that must be addressed.
Inanna, 'Thank you for introducing the human side that I am alluding to
Lime I want to share something with you so you know that I am considering what you have to say and not shooting from the hip.
I felt very strongly about extreme measures in extreme prematurity and had very strongg convictions about what I would do in that situation. Very much further complicated by being part of the medical profession
Then I heard the story of an Australian Doctor who's partner had a 24 (ish) weeker and their wishes were no heroics, alas in the moment the baby was ventilated and heroics ensued, The baby was almost certainly going to have severe disibilities. The Doctor and his wfie went to NICU, cuddled their baby and turned of fthe ventilator, he was subsequently charged with manslaughter of his own child. As if their suffering was not enough.
What was my response. I went to Samoa where heroics are not available but simple measures such as nasogastric tubes and basic ventliation are between 22-26 weeks for fear of being put in that situation.
But you know what? every day in Samoa I questioned my decision, My baby was kicking, communicating with me, it was mine.My philosophy didnt really change but I realised the complexities. I made a plan for what I would do if I wnet into labour which involved catching the next plane to NZ and calling an ambulance from teh tarmac on landing.
At the same time my friend had a 23 +5 weeker, he lived. He does have a degree of disability but I simply cannot look at his face and be as strong in my conviction
It is likey Iwill have future babies far from NICU's because of where I want to live and work and where i want my family to learn about the world. I still hold an idea that there is a natural order to things and we cannot intervene and save lives at all cost, BUt I see that there are many shades of grey in this arguement and find the extremes at either end offensive.
I also think we need to recognise the privelage of choice on issues such as these.
Interestingly Inanna it is cases like yours that make the medical profession even more determined to achieve herd immunity, to protect those who can't and shouldn't be vaccinated, generally due to a lower immune system which would also make infectious disease more severe
I think this is the sticking point, because pro-vaxers (like myself) do belive that vaccinations are curing disease by prevention. I know you mean prevention by other means, but until people see vaccinations as anything other than miracle workers, the status quo will be to fund more vaccinations, rather than look at other prevention strategies (which is already happening imo, like with the HPV vaccination instead of informing people about safe sex, same with the efforts for an HIV vaccine, rather than looking at the social issues in countries like Africa which sees many people reject safe sex practices).:
I know the side effects of vaccinations is a massive issue for most non-vaccinators, but until a study is performed comparing the risk of the disease with the risk of the side effects, medical advice will remain firmly in the camp of vaccinations.
I think side effects of drugs, ultrasounds, radiation therapy, shock therapy etc will be the next wave of studies in this country and other western nations as we turn our attention more and more towards what WE are doing to harm people and our planet.
EDIT: on the topic of premature babies, I also feel it needs to be a case by case situation and people should have a CHOICE whether they want to save their baby or not. I am appalled someone would be charged for turning off a ventilator. But then, Australia used to charge women whose babies died of SIDS. My aunt was questioned by police etc when her daughter died. Our penchant for litigation and 'justice' is just as problematic as the technologies that allow us to play god/dess.
No war certainly isn't the second I refer to.
There are generally 2 ways in which species population is controlled: Food Abundance and Procreation rates. They are linked completely.
Generally when a population exhausts its food source or strains it, it will naturally cease to produce as many offspring until the food source can recover. When it does, population naturally increases again. It is a self preservation mechanism that the human species has managed through technology to so far circumvent, but this is getting more and more difficult to do as it is ultimately costing the planet itself.
As for would I feel the same if I lived in a Third World nation. Yes. If I had the same information I have now (the supply of which to such populations is another huge point of contention in vax discussions, but for argument sack we will assume I can access the ingredients and studies on said vaccinations).... Yes I would feel the same way, given my family history.
And until there was significant testing (long term, generational studies) on HIV vaccine, I wouldn't even bother to consider it at all, no.
The things I am speaking of WILL affect the western populations. They will affect the whole world, not just developing nations. Through economic affects, social affects, all will be affected. But yes, there will be massive devastation through places where technology we take fro granted is not available or provided.
Historically though, responsibility for this very problem is a White/Western/Imperialist hangover and by extension, developed nations responsibilty (hence 'our' humanitarian urge to save them - 'we' ruined them in the first place.)
:
Sorry, I mustn't have been clear.
The core of pro-vax stance, as you have just confirmed, is that vaccines are the conerstone to cure by prevention. which they are, not withstanding other efforts, such as the ones you went on the mention.
The point I was making though was that given that you believe in cure by prevention, the question I posed at the end of my above post regarding population control after we have irradicated all disease and bacteria, becomes relevant.
As an aside, there are risk percentiles available for contracting certain disease preventable by vaccine, especially Hep B and the haemorrage illness supposedly helped by the injection of Vit K at birth, and it is their individual risk tht many people use to dertermine whether or not to use vaccines that pose a risk for their kids.
:
I don't really think that anyone is expecting disease to be wiped out completely - well, I am certainly not. I accept that we are human and imperfect and that there are things out of our control. I think it is about giving ourselves the best chance at survival which is actually why some of us choose to vax and some of us choose not to - depending on what we believe is necessary to our own survival and what is a potential hinderance to it.
I do think we need to be aware of the bigger picture and understand that death is a part of life (because there is so much more that threatens our existence than just disease and illness) but I think all we can do it manage our own lives and the lives of the children and aim for the best possible outcomes for ourselves.
I think too much of a level of acceptance about the issues of death and disease is dangerous. It is our stubborness as humans to refuse to just accept these things that drive research that improve what we know about health (and the same could be said for research pertaining to the arguments for and against vaccines). I think to believe that it is all foolproof is a niave, but we have to try. I don't want to see the day when we just accept that this is the way the world works because then we all stop trying to achieve. I think we should reach above and beyond what is possible and I see nothing wrong with that. Humans have been fighting for their own survival since the beginning of time and the survival of their offspring. It is instinctual and I see nothing wrong with it.
I guess this whole issue of compulsory vaccines comes back to what some people believe is necessary for their own survival and seem to hold the belief that if vaccines were compulsory in our community then preventable disease would not be as prevalent. I really don't agree that vaccines should be compulsory, but there is something very primal about this view in terms of fighting for survival. I believe that human rights go hand in hand with our survival and that deprivation of human rights can lead to a whole cascade of behaviours that eventually become a threat to our survival and therefore would be counteractive on that front. Primarily, that is not why I disagree with compulsory vaccination, but my objective in vaccinating my own kids, is also providing the best opportunity for their survival and I feel the measures in place currently are satisfactorily achieving that.
Lime, you mention some difficult issues in your thread and I think our own 'humaness' can be very confronting at times. I think we deny it is much as possible and to a certain degree, I actually think it is okay. When our denial starts to infringe on the rights of others, I think it crosses a line though.
Wow Polly I like you very much. :hug: As I do you Limey :hug: Isn't it wonderful how diverse we all are, the places we are coming from yet we are hearing each other. I wonder what the world would be like if we could multiply this... :think:
Hmm... it would be interesting if you took the time to actually see what the statistics of your child getting these issues where verses the stats of catching the diseases they're being immunised against and compare the two. I think you'll find the epidemics aren't where you think they are...:
What point is there in swapping one epidemic for the possibility of another? It's all about risks vs benefits - which ever has the highest stats is the one I'm going to worry about.
It is always nice to be able to have an intelligent discussion without slanging matches, but with understanding and consideration.
I can totally see where you are coming from Polly, and you are right, that grey area is there in spades. And our perspective and experiences will always I think ply our opinions on such issues. Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind and hearing it, and thank you for offering your questions and alternatives which I am thinking about in depth. :)
ETA: Especially since my spelling has been atrocious! :rofl:
:rofl: yes I have been slow because I have to keep updating my bad spelling!
I see you posted just as I was too Limey, so i understand your argument better now.
I think we managed to resurrect the discussion from the downhill slope it was heading. Yay for diplomacy.
And Inanna, I always question my authenticity on BB. I am always confronted by the wonderful hearts and minds we have in our community and I luff it! And you all :grouphug: