No Vaccination? Stay Home! Mom Talk
Don't make my kid sick just because you don't want to vaccinate yours.
Parents who are afraid to vaccinate need a wake up call.
Sure, you have every right to make decisions about your kids' health. But you definitely don't have the right to put my kids at risk.
That is exactly what is happening.
Although diseases that standard vaccinations prevent remain statistically low, the numbers are rising at an alarming rate. Last year, at least 10 infants died in California alone from Whooping Cough in what was considered the largest outbreak in 60 years.
They caught it from people who were not vaccinated.
A Harvard instructor, David Ropeik, wrote an article for Contemporary Pediatrics magazine's August issue. Ropeik is an expert on risk.
He said immunizations prevent about 42,000 deaths and 20 million cases of disease. The net cost savings is nearly $14 billion (with a B) in direct costs and $69 billion (another B) in total societal costs, he said.
He claimed that parents who choose not to vaccinate do so out of fear. He should know. He said fears like these are deeply rooted and respects the fact "that no amount of communication or dialogue or reasoning can make people really worried about vaccines stop worrying."
OK, so I try to respect every parents' decision to make the right choices for their own children. I truly believe in this. However, right choices must be based on information, not fear.
The British Medical Journal called the study linking vaccinations to autism an "elaborate fraud." Then the Center for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization all agreed.
The risk of developing a disease or disorder from the measles vaccine is one in a million. Whereas, the risk contracting something from the measles virus is only 1 in 1,000.
These numbers were quoted in the Aug. 22 issue of Time in an article titled "Vaccinate or Leave. More pediatricians are firing families for not giving their kids shots," by Jeffrey Kluger.
Immunizations prevent between 2 and 3 million deaths each year, says the World Health Organiation.
Ropeik asks readers to consider one small outbreak. He described a real situation when an unvaccinated Swiss woman visited Tuscon, AZ.
She got sick, went to the hospital, and within three months, 14 people, including seven kids, had gotten measles. Seven of the people caught the disease while at a healthcare facility. Four were hospitalized.
The costs to two local hospitals was $800,000. State and local health departments paid tens of thousands more tracking down the exposed then quarantining and treating them.
According to Time, the annual average number of measles cases in the U.S. from 2001 to 2008 was 60. As of August this year, we already had over 154.
Nonimmunized people rely on the masses to be vaccinated. It's called herd immunity. However, the U.S. is losing herd immunity, big time.
This puts our most vulnerable at risk, such as infants, children and people who have compromised immune systems. Yes, our cancer patients are contracting some of the more horrific, preventable diseases.
So here's the deal: when you don't vaccinate your kid, you put my kid at risk. If that's the way you want to roll, fine, more power to you. That's your right.
But do us all a favor — literally. Go find an isolated commune somewhere. Leave the rest of us alone.
Shannon
7:24 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I think you might see this a little different if you had a child that had a reaction to a vaccine. No, I'm not talking about autism, but a reaction none the less. Have you taken the time to look at what is inside these vaccines? Have you read and done all the research? Their was just a recent study that showed that the Whooping Cough vaccine isn't working as long as the researchers thought it should work for. So, are the kids that caught Whooping Cough getting it from an unvaxed child, from an adult, or from someone that had the Whooping Cough Vaccine and it stopped working. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/whooping-cough-vaccine-three-years_n_970139.html
What about children that are allergic to items used to make the vaccines? Lots of kids are allergic to eggs. Eggs are used in making these vaccines. They can have a life threatening allergic reaction to the shot. Are they still suppose to "Go find an isolated commune somewhere. Leave the rest of us alone."
I don't slam anyone for their personal choices on if they vax or don't vax. It is a personal choice and in most cases made with great research if the parent chooses not to vax.
forget me
8:22 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I'm highly offended by your (go find an isolated commune?) What the bleep ? I think if you were in my shoes , you wouldn't being saying that. Yes, I chose not to vaccinate my child who is now 15. My son who is 18 now had a severe reaction to the DPT. 20 minutes after the injection, on our way home, he became lethargic & was slumping in his seat. His lips were turning blue. My oldest son was talking to him trying to keep him alert. I rushed him to the ER. Fortunately he ended up being alright. I was told he could never have another DPT. They think it was the pertussis part but couldn't be sure. That was so tramatic to almost lose my son. I became a freak after my next child was born & decided not to vaccinate. I spoke with the physician on my concerns & felt the risk was high enough for my family. So, I truly hope you never have to experience what I did. After reading many of your articles, I feel the world revolves around you & your family.
Will
8:46 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I just do not understand this argument 'When you don't vaccinate your kid, you put my kid at risk.' The point of a vaccination is that you are immune (or near immune) to the disease after receiving it. The only other people that should really have to worry about this are those who also do not vaccinate their children, and that is a risk they take (I don't understand this argument personally in many cases but some people such as the above poster do have legitimate reasons). I don't understand how someone who does vaccinate their children can make the argument that this puts their children at risk, because if it does, then there is not point to using vaccines.
Mike
9:17 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Will, you are mostly correct. The only risk I can see to the vaccinated children is on the low-percentage in which the vaccine was not effective. No vaccine is 100% effective, but there is a benefit to "heard immunity." If a large number are vaccinated against Germ-X, there is a lower probability that the person with a failed-vaccine will come in contact with Germ-X. If 3 kids in a class of 20 are simply not vaccinated, and one comes down with the illness, those 3 kids are at risk, sure - but so also are all the kids whose vaccinations may have not been effective, and we don't know how many that is.
It's possible that the ineffectively-vaccinated individual would come down with the illness anyway, but the probabilities are greater if the individual is in contact with a non-vaccinated carrier, that otherwise might not be a carrier.
That's the argument anyway.
Will
1:55 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Hey Mike, I pretty much agree with you (that was why I put in paranthesis 'near immune')...there is a chance even a vaccinated person could get a disease as well. My argument is that you cannot argue that a person needs to be vaccinated to prevent a disease, and then argue that your child will get the disease from a non-vaccinated person BECAUSE OF them not being vaccinated since vaccination renders your own child getting it a very slim chance (this is the reason you vaccinate your child in my opinion, to render them near immune if they do happen to be exposed to it). I would also argue that if vaccinations actually have that high of a probability of not working, then what are they for? I'm not saying I believe vaccines to be ineffective. I vaccinate my kids and unless they had something occur like Nancy above my post did, I have no intention of stopping this, but this would validate those whom don't vaccinate their children since it does not show (to me) a huge benefit to doing so if the probability is still high your child will get the disease if vaccinated.
Tim
3:54 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
"I just do not understand this argument"
You are right, you do not understand it.
Simply being vaccinated is not a guarantee that you will not catch the associated disease. Even if you are vaccinated, you still are put at risk by people who CHOSE not to vaccinate for unfounded reasons. Yes, there are real reasons where some may not be able to be vaccinated, but they are not even close to the majority of people who chose this route.
If you are interested, talk to your doctor, and tell them you want the full explanation why this is true. They will be happy to explain it to you.
Most of the comments here so far are made by people with emotional responses, and not logical or factual responses.
Will
9:26 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tim, maybe you should actually read what I typed...could you please tell me what the point of vaccinating a child is if they are still at a high risk to catch the disease? What is the point then? The point of vaccinating anyone (and the reason I and my children are vaccinated) is to significantly reduce the risk of catching that disease. If that isn't the reason, then there is no point to these vaccines. Even reading the original article, she point out how measles on the rise in this country because 154 people have gotten it so far this year...to me considering that there are 300 million people in this country that is pretty good evidence that it works. So how effective is a vaccination (this is the question Mike brought up)? If a vaccination only reduces your chance of getting a disease by 10% then my question is what is the point? But if it reduces it by 98-99% (which looks like the case for measles at least), then why would I worry too much about my vaccinated child getting measles from a non-vaccinated child? There is a 1% chance or less that it would even affect mine and my feeling is whatever exposed the original non-vaccinated kid would stand an equal chance of infecting my child even if they were vaccinated since my child has that same chance if they are exposed to it from some other source. Maybe you should use some logic in your argument because I don't see any in what you presented (your's seemed more emotional than mine).
Chzncrckrs
9:57 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Perhaps....the vaccines just DON'T WORK, which is why they are making a comeback, regardless who is and who isn't vaccinated. If you're supposedly 'vaccinated' against diseases such as measles, mump, chickenpox, etc...isn't that supposed to mean you're protected from that disease? Perhaps...because we have made so many vaccines, antibacterial agents, and antibiotics that new strains of these diseases are emerging that your present vaccinations will not protect you against. I find your entire article ludicrous in the fact that you think unvaccinated children are going to hurt your own. If yours are vaccinated, what's your big deal?
Will
2:03 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I agree with the article in principle...in my opinion vaccines do show that they work which is why I, and my children, are and will continue to be vaccinated. But I agree with your last statement...what is the point of vaccinating anyone if they are still going to get the disease? If this is her argument that a non-vaccinated child will make her vaccinated child sick, then she just destroyed her own argument...
Tim
3:58 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The 'big deal' is that you have no idea what you are talking about, and I can guarantee that you are NOT a medical professional saying such things.
Simply being vaccinated is not 100% method of preventing diseases. It never has been. When you CHOOSE not to vaccinate due to your own medical ignorance(and that is what we are talking about here), you do place others at risk. That is the plain and simple fact. You can't rationally argue against it, anymore than you can argue against the fact that the sun is a star.
Chzncrckrs
7:22 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Oh I forgot Tim....you know everything. Yep, you're right.
Little do you know that I've done my research, and you don't need to be in the medical profession to know the difference!
Will
9:29 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
And I can guarantee, Tim, that you are not either because of your rants on here I could tell you would be throwing them in everyone's face. I never presented myself as a medical professional (and I'm not) but to me a logical question is why would you worry about other people not vaccinating if you vaccinate your children and reduce your own risk for many of these diseases by doing so?
Denise Williams
10:29 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Erin's concern is valid. She has a right to object to having her children exposed to diseases that are generally preventable. Just as others have a right to choose not to vaccinate their kids.
Vaccinated children usually won't get sick, but they can be carriers. Mommy A vaccinates now 5 year old Johnny, who goes to school and is exposed to Measles, who while asymptomatic himself, becomes a carrier. Johnny comes home and infects Mommy A, who is pregnant, and while she gets few or no sypmtoms, the disease has catastrophic effects on her unborn child.
Many diseases that rarely have serious effects on kids can be life altering or life threatening to adults who were immunizationed many decades in the past.
Unvaccinated children pose a risk not just to other kids, but to the community at large.
There are prices to pay for living in a community. If you do not want to pay those prices, and for one poster above it is understandable, one of the consequences you face is the chance that your decision may cost someone else their life. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out and objecting to it, which Erin has done.
Shannon
11:12 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Erin is able to have an opinion and voice it. However, saying "Go find an isolated commune somewhere. Leave the rest of us alone." is just wrong. If you don't know the reasons why someone doesn't vaccinate you can't understand. It is just a very harsh statement to make, and when you put that out there, you have to realize that you will hear back about it. It's a hateful comment.
Chzncrckrs
11:27 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Again, vaccinated children should be fully protected from contracting disease should the vaccine be effective. When you get vaccinated, what do you think you're injected with? A strain (or numerous strains) of that particular disease (among other frightening ingredients). This whole scare tactic of vaccinated children being at risk of those that aren't is ridiculous! Perhaps you should research the effects on kids that get vaccinated, as opposed to those that don't.
Tim
4:00 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
"vaccinated children should be fully protected from contracting disease should the vaccine be effective"
NO THEY ARE NOT!
Stop repeating things that are flat out lies.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support your claim, and in fact it is quite well understood that the point of vaccines is not to completely prevent disease in the individual, but to prevent catastrophic and devastating outbreaks in the general population that you live in.
Beth Lopez
10:33 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I agree with the other comment that if you are getting your child vaccinated and still feel that exposing them to a disease puts them at risk you negate the point in getting them vaccinated in the first place. What research are you basing your statement that 6 infants in CA got whooping cough from unvaccinated people? Does this mean the 6 infants were vaccinated and still got the disease? Wouldn't an ineffective vaccine be the bigger issue? The notion that you and your children will live in a sterile environment is niave. This column just seems offensive and your "isolated commune" comment is irresponsible. Many people make choices to vaccinate not just on personal preference but on religious principal as well. Now you are treading on civil rights.
Erin Gallagher
10:55 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Civil rights, my patute. I'm a big fan of individual rights, but not at the expense of the week and infirm. When you choose not to vaccinate for reasons other than medical, you are putting infants (who are too young to get vaccinated), children (who have not completed certain vaccinations) and others (people who are allergic to certain vaccinations and/or have compromised immune systems) at grave risk. Period. Sure, have your civil rights, just have them at home.
Tim
4:23 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
So many people are ignorant when it comes to the actual science.
Not one single medical professional will tell you that a vaccine is a 100% assurance that you will not get the disease. That is not what vaccines are designed for!
Vaccines are designed to prevent catastrophic outbreaks from decimating entire populations.
Let me try to give you a visual representation of what I mean;
Picture a room full of mousetraps that are set and ready to go off, all within inches of each other. A vaccine, is comparable to placing a lightweight cover over a single mouse trap. Picture a virus/disease as a tennis ball being thrown into this room. Some traps will go off by being hit directly by the ball, and the rest will go off when they are hit by the reactions of the other traps that have been set off.
If most, or all, of the traps are covered only a very small amount of traps will be set off(infected) and it will usually not spread far. However, as more and more traps become uncovered, the risk to the other traps being set off by the violent reactions increases significantly, even if they are covered(vaccinated).
Ask you doctor to clarify this for you, not a message board. Nobody here who is advocating choice is even remotely close to being medically accurate in what they are claiming.
Shannon
11:13 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Erin, if you don't want your child to come into contact with the unvaxed children, why don't you " Go find an isolated commune somewhere. Leave the rest of us alone."
Will
1:56 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Love this comment...that would solve her problem wouldn't it?
Tim
4:09 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Cool.
So I can come drive drunk on your streets in the morning when the school bus is making its rounds, and just tell you to 'leave me alone'?
That makes putting peoples lives at risk, that have nothing to do with the situation, completely acceptable?
No.
Shannon
4:37 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
No Tim, I was replying to the hate in her statement. It is a rude and ignorant statement to make. It is not illegal to not vaccinate your child. It is illegal for you to drive drunk.
Beth Lopez
11:19 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Definition of Civil Rights: Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Telling someone to have their civil right "at home" goes against the definition of civil rights. I understand your concerns about exposure to disease and proper disease prevention, but assuming this issue is as black and white as vaccination stops disease vs. non vaccination spreads it is a surface conversation at best. Even a previous comment mentioned the fact that an immunized individual can still be a carrier for disease. So unless you are inoculating the entire world and wiping out whooping cough entirely you will always have exposure on some level. The issue with your careless comment isn't so much about the merits of vaccination (which few people would argue, vaccinations work for the majority and should be used). It's more about segmenting out a small number of people based on their beliefs and telling them to have those beliefs at home or live on an isolated commune.
Denise Williams
11:37 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Beth, you had me then you lost me. Erin has a right to expect her children not be exposed to a preventable disease in a public school.
The problem with bringing the concept of civil rights protection into this conversation is the expectation that one person's civil rights supercedes another's. Additionally, it is Erin's constitutionally protected right to say what she did, as it is your's to say what you did. These are opinions, and like certain orifices, are useful to their owner and often offensive to others.
Beth Lopez
11:46 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Denise, I loved that "certain orifices",....very funny!
I would agree with you about Erin's right to expect her children to not be exposed to preventable disease and I don't have an issue with manditory vaccinations, however, there will ALWAYS be acceptions as many people have noted. Some people simply cannot have vaccinations and many people have very valid reasons for choosing not have vaccinations. This is a very good and worthwhile conversation to have. I am just offended by some of the language in the article and feel that its irresponsible. We can debate for years about what constitutes a "valid reason" to get immunized. The bottom line; if you are concerned about your child's exposure to an illness, go get the shot. If they have it, their exposure to someone that didn't have the shot is most likely going to negate their contraction of the disease. Offending people just isn't necessary.
Kelly Belli
11:28 am on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I think the issue here is not "opinions" it is a genuine concern for the health and safety of our children. Diseases like polio have been eliminated in the US but with the increasing rate of unvaccinated children, this may not remain the case.
mom of 2
12:02 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I can see all both sides of the argument. But, Erin, I did find your article rather harsh! Instead, I think you could have gotten your point across a lot better by not telling people to "stay home" or "go live in a commune". We have to all share a community with many different people all with diverse opinions on everything. I don't think it's very nice that when someone disagrees with your opinion that you tell them to go live in a commune.
Tim
4:04 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
This is the only response to stupid behavior.
You may think it is harsh, and you may think it is somehow unfair. But frankly, many of us in the civilized world have grown very tired of a handful of stupid people making decisions that they do not realize is putting others at risk, as somehow being acceptable.
Look, you don't think it is someones 'right' to drive around on the roads drunk because of their civil rights. You think it is wrong because you find it unacceptable that other innocent people that have nothing to do with the situation, are having their very lives put at risk.
If you think 'choosing' a vaccine is a right, you must logically think driving drunk is also a right. Hey, 'most' of the time, nobody gets hurt, right?
Do you see the problem with this line of thought yet?
Will
9:41 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
This is unrelated because a drunk driver makes a choice that can harm other people whom cannot prevent it...a non-vaccinated person make a choice to hurt themselves...vaccinated people have very little to worry about because the vaccination renders them NEAR immune (this is basically like forcing a drunk drive to drive no faster than 5mph in a plastic bubble...yes he 'could' still hurt someone but the chances are slim to none). Even someone driving not under the influence has a small chance of killing someone every time they drive but we don't tell everyone they have to stop because someone may get hurt. I guarantee you many more people die from a drunk driver making a choice to drive drunk than a vaccinated person catching a disease from a non-vaccinated person.
Cherie Johnson
12:06 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Thank you so much for having the guts to voice this in a public forum. I have been saying the same for years. The amount of arguments I have been involved in concerning this issue will attest to that! I have 5 beautiful children (ages 32, 21, 18, 16, and 12) who have all been vaccinated as recommended since babyhood. My youngest has JRA and was unable to receive one dose of the mmr vaccine (delayed but later received) due to the immune suppressing medication he was taking at the time...I was told by his Dr.s to beware of children whose parents do not vaccinate because he could easily catch the measles and likely be hospitalized (or worse). These uneducated, baseless decisions not to vaccinate have far reaching consequences. So many of these parents are making choices that have potentially serious consequences for all children. "We" have chosen to vaccinate our kids (and dealt with the...oooohhh...normal reactions ie: soreness, fever, lethargy, etc.) in an attempt to keep all children safe from these diseases. I despise that other people put our kids health at risk because their kids "don't like to get shots". Unless there is a REAL medical issue, it should be the law. period. Otherwise, as you said, move somewhere else and keep the disease (that will surely spread in a community of unvaccinated kids) contained. Thanks again for your insight.
Tim
6:02 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Well said.
And the spread of disease in an unvaccinated population is exactly what will happen, just as it happened before in the 19th century throughout certain segments of the Protestant Church.
Yes, all of this has happened before, and from what I am reading here, it will all happen again.
Unfortunately, it is going to take a widespread outbreak with a lot of people dying, for this to sink in for some people. Just like it did the last time.
Chzncrckrs
12:14 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I think you people should do some research before you post. Children aren't being vaccinated now because they "don't like to get shots"....seriously? Uneducated and baseless decisions....sure people are just saying no because of a little skin prick. Give me a break! Unfortunately, there are many children who have had very serious adverse reactions to vaccinations outside of sore throats and coughs, moreso these days than when we were children.
Tim
4:06 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
prove it, or stop claiming it.
Chzncrckrs
7:25 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
You're so capable of leaving comments on everyone's posts, so look up the research yourself, Tim. You seem like a smart enough guy. Start reading then you can come back and make your quirky little comments on how you know so much.
Tim
8:01 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Im telling you to go talk to an actual doctor that you use now, to back up what I am saying. searching on google for 'research' is not something I believe you or most people here are even capable of doing. What site are you going to? If it is not ArXiv, which contains all the data of all the hundreds of thousands of medical studies performed and their results, you are just wading through a morass of sites with opinions on them, and nothing more. That is not 'research', it is filtering your exposure to knowledge by your existing prejudices and limitations.
Not a single of the hundreds of thousands of medical journals supports your position, and reading articles from people who call themselves doctors, but who actually have a PhD in Geology, is not research, it is reading uninformed opinions.
This is not a debate, where each opinion is given equal weight. Anymore than the wavelength of blue light being 475nm is an opinion. Anyone musing that it might be 'different' is simply expressing an opinion that is ignorant of the facts at hand.
Yes, there are those who can not be vaccinated. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about those who CHOOSE not to do this. They are operating with the mental faculty of a child, and not able to comprehend the damage to the society they live in that they are causing, and will therefore be spoken to like a child. I don't care how 'rude' you think it is.
Chzncrckrs
6:36 am on Thursday, September 22, 2011
I'm not going to go back and forth with you, Tim. I'm not going to allow you to try and make your opinion the 'only way', or no way. There are plenty of reasons why people choose not to get their child vaccinated and I'm truly sorry you refuse to see that side of it. I have a lot more behind me than a google search bar, so as you accuse me of not knowing anything about what I am talking about keep in mind that you also know nothing about me or my background. Years ago, we were all taught that vaccines were the life-saver, that we would go through our rounds and be safe....I certainly don't think that now. And that is an opinion that I'm entitled to.
Dawn
2:00 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Decisions should be made from facts not fear. Guess what. Whether it is the government or the medical community we don't believe all your facts. We have been lied to too much for your profit. I did get the normal vaccines for my children when they were little but it seems like there are new ones all the time, and you can't tell me that pushing your fears onto people isn't profitable. My question would be: Why do people catch a disease from someone that hasn't been vaccinated if they have been vaccinated? Isn't the vaccine suppose to protect them?
Mike
2:18 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Yes, it is SUPPOSED to protect them, but as has been mentioned - no vaccine is 100% effective. There will be a certain number of failures. Maybe it's the vaccine's fault, maybe it's the person's immune system, maybe the medical staff didn't store or administer the vaccine correctly. There are too many variables to cover everything.
Still, the world is better-off not having to deal with measles, polio, and pertussis on a regular basis thanks to vaccinations.
Frankie
10:30 pm on Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Do we have the right to change natural occurances is at the core of this all?
In a flood prone area someone builds up their property to divert water away from their home. When the flood does come the water now pours into areas that would not be inundated without the diverted water flow.
And so now we live in a world that has artificially tampered with the natural occurance of disease. We also see an increase across the board of people who's auto-immune systems are weakened or otherwise compromised. Would this have occurred had the diseases been allowed to run the natural course? Impossible to know because industries and medical professionals have intervened and upset the natural order. I for one think the balances in nature are more complex than the understanding of them by man. But we have "experts" to rely on, and now we live in a world so severely altered that there will not be a recovery until the day that humnkind is extinguished and a new natural order is restored.
People cry about the damage to fruit and vegetables as a result of cross polination with GMO tainted produce, yet defend the "altered" health of mankind as if it is right. This is the result of physicians and pharmecueticals driven to build profits and the result is it also keep us dependent and sickly. They just want the revenue stream that results and care not for our well being.
Barry Allen
1:10 am on Thursday, September 22, 2011
Frankie, I find it very difficult to feel it was wrong to erradicate small pox from the earth.
mom of 2
5:00 pm on Thursday, September 22, 2011
Frankie, while I understand and respect your position, I don't understand what this has to do with the article?
Point is, this is a very offending and irresponsible article. Journalism at it's core is to report on facts and present a point of view.. Not to tell people to stay home or go live in a commune. Days later, I'm still offended by the tone of this authors article and shocked that she was allowed to post it. And I vaccinate my kids and I was still offended!
Frankie
5:35 pm on Thursday, September 22, 2011
We may not know the toll of vaccinating in our lifetimes. I would guess that many of the diseases we currently fight are offshoots of strengthened strains. Just like our new viruses mutate, and pesticides create stronger more resistant pests, it may have been better in the long run to let these diseases run their courses and for mankind to develop our own immunity as a species. Impossible to know this now due to so much tampering.
Mom of 2. What this has to do with the article is that reading all of the opinions made me notice that my point of view was NOT being expressed. I think any article can become the forum for discussion related to the topic. I like you was very offended by the author. I would not even attempt to change her mind. I am only interested in allowing people to think differently on their own after reading something that perhaps they did not think of on their own.