This is one of the most recent topics that boil my blood. That in the 21st century, with more than 100 years of solid evidence, with irrefutable proof of the decrease (in grand part due to vaccines), or even extermination of devastating diseases such as cholera, rabies, typhoid fever, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, smallpox and many other more. Despite the unmistakable and unambiguous recommendation of pretty much every single physician out there this MYTH still exist.
I abhor those that spread and perpetuate these myth that not only endangers children that fail to receive the vaccine but also endanger those who do receive and fail to create the necessary immunological response (Immuno-compromised for instance, but also a fraction of the population do not create antibodies for specific antigens and never gain immunity despite vaccine), etc.
Right... or that a miniscule amount of mercury is going have those kinds of long-term effects. We're talking micrograms here, people, not huge amounts over a long period of time. Eating one shellfish probably has more mercury in it than in a vaccine. The whole autism argument is rubbish, and not based on any scientific evidence.
Not only that but thimerosal (the component that contains mercury) is rarely used anymore except for very very few vaccines (some of the influenza vaccine do contain it).
I trust my doctor. I trust that vaccination is beneficial. However, I don't see how explaining the science to people is supposed to help build their trust, especially when it comes to kids.
I don't see how explaining the science does not help you trust. What I can understand is if you say "I don't know how explaining in technical terms that I don't even know what they mean can help me make a better decision" then that's a whole different story and that is your doctor's fault for not using easier to understand terms but it is also your fault for leaving his/her office without being satisfied with the explanation"
I agree with vaccines and do them but the flaw in your/our logic is mutation. Both viral-mutation but also human-mutation. What if we are mutating ourselves the wrong way? and that is evolutionarily backwards, isn't that a possibility? Considering the ethics of corporations I would think that possibility to be quite massive.
I don't know if you are being serious or sarcastic. First: viral mutation occurs unrelated to vaccines. Those mutations (e.g. with flu virus) occur whether you vaccinate or not. We HAVE to make vaccines for each new strain because it has already mutated, it does not mutate because we made a vaccine for it. Human mutation does not occur by any of the vaccinations we receive. PERIOD. That is not science. If you know how vaccines work you will know that humans do not mutate in any way shape or for due to vaccines. Saying that is not only wrong but also very dangerous since apparently all you have to do is mention a possible remote (and fake) downside and the anti-vaccine movement goes nuts with the news. So let me repeat it very clearly, VACCINES does not causes mutations in people NOR viruses. NOW, you might read that "retroviral vaccine (or something along those lines) have caused certain cancers or leukemia. Although the terms might be confusing these are not the same vaccine people receive for inmunizations. These are (in most cases) highly experimental TREATMENT (GENE THERAPY, not vaccines) to very davastating genetic diseases. For instance a couple of decades back there were SCID (sever complete inmunodeficiency), "bubble boy" where the patient basically has no immune system and either die or have to be kept in complete 100% sterile isolation. Experimental treatment with a retrovirus (to insert the defective genes into the patient) was conducted with what is essentially gene therapy using a retrovirus as a vector. Those do have the capacity of changing your genome (mutate) and it is in fact what you are hoping to do when you do this kind of treatment (although sometimes it can go wrong and cause other problems). HOWEVER! The vaccines we use for disease prevention, DO NOT change your genome, nor are they even remotely capable of doing it.
Someone mentioned before that anti-vaxer parents should be jailed (or something along those lines) which is quite ridiculous (as much as I would hate them for the unnecessary risk) but as a thought experiment I want to evaluate that argument anyhow. The parent might not be the person that knows what it is best for his/her child, in the case of health it might be the doctor, in the case of education in might be the teacher, in the case of drowning in the pool it might be the swimmer instructor. The parent might not even have the best interest of the child in mind (although they might think they do) but they should, for the most part, retain the decision to educate/teach/protect his/her child to the best of his/her abilities (within reasonable boundaries). For instance, the risk of 1 parent not vaccinating his/her child poses tiny (necessary!, but tiny) on the child. But the same its true about other choices that are not even up for debate. I suspect that choosing a car with a 4star safety rating instead of 5star safety rating probably has a bigger aggregate effect than vaccination do in child mortality simply because there are far more car accidents with child involved than there are cases of fatal (or severe health consequences) outbreak of these diseases that have been largely exterminated. So would you consider a parent that chose the slightly less safe car as irresponsible (or more?) than the parent that refuses the vaccination? What about other things... what about the parents that consume smoked meats (those are linked to cancer esophageal and gastric) or reduced fiber (colon-rectal cancer) or those that let their kids play in the beach (skin cancer). Would you consider the parent of a white kid a worse parent than the parent of a black kid when both allow them to play in the sun (white people are more sensitive to cancer). Obviously the answer for most of you is no. Which brings me back to my original thought. Under most circumstances I believe the parent should still retain his/her "right" to deny the vaccine, for as long as it is reasonable. What do I mean by reasonable? If 10 years from now 10-20% of the population stops vaccinating their kids, it can become a serious problem as we might begin to lose "herd immunity" and those people are putting the rest of the population in risk. As it is stand right now, with the prevalence of "anti-vaxcers" today, that is a very small risk.
- By Tainari88
- By skinster
- By QatzelOk
- By litwin