Your lack of rational thought confuses me. Then I realized, you are consuming far too much medical mj. That’s the only world where your arguments make sense.
2 Likes
Parents are currently allowed to decide.
Personally, I do not believe that people should be forced to vaccinate their children (although I am absolutely fine with regulations stating that children may not attend public school without up-to-date vaccinations). The ethics are extremely difficult here. I don’t really like the government forcing people to do anything.
With that said, I do know people who believe that not vaccinating could/should be considered a criminal act (especially if the child dies of a vaccine-preventable disease). I do not share that viewpoint, but I understand why those people hold it. The argument for compulsory vaccination says that it is a public-health hazard to be unvaccinated; if one or more unvaccinated persons becomes a carrier of vaccine-preventable disease, they may infect others who are also unvaccinated or others who have weakened or compromised immune systems (i.e. very elderly, very young, people that have received organ transplants).
Here’s a timeline for you.
Wakefield’s paper was published in The Lancet in 1998 as a case series of 12 patients (no control group, awful design) that had received an MMR vaccine who developed autism.
Several much larger, much more comprehensive population-based studies followed, and found no link between MMR vaccine and autism.
In 2004, 10 of the 12 co-authors of Wakefield’s original paper issued a retraction acknowledging that their paper did not support a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and disclosing previously-hidden financial conflicts of interest, most notably that Wakefield had been paid off by lawyers who were involved in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. This is not disputable; it is a fact.
In 2010, the Lancet completely retracted the original 1998 paper, stating that several elements in the paper were incorrect or misrepresented (most damning, that they had pretended their study population included consecutive patients; it was actually a highly selected population that included only the patients who would support their point).
The British Medical Journal ran a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which took place largely because Wakefield saw an opportunity to get famous / make money.
Humorously, you’ve been ranting on about this as a Big Pharma conspiracy. You’re half right. Money is a driving factor in this whole fiasco. Just not in the direction you think. This was a way for a rogue physician to get rich by supporting lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.
Happy to answer any questions.
3 Likes
Because some parents are incompetent and misconceive the effect of not having their kid vaccinated because of bullshit autism claim and shear negligence.
If your child doesn’t have vaccination documents and proof of it they shouldn’t be allowed into public schools as they are a health risk.
An example of the perverse incentive of the “system”
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000145
The “system” tried to keep marijuana illegal so people could not have the choice. As they may choose it over Big Pharmas drugs. And that would put a dent in their profit, so that cannot be allowed. They are doing the same with stem cell treatment-a less expensive more effective way of treating some diseases. Their profits will take a hit and that is what is most important. I just posted a video of people that have been treated successfully with stem cells, giving testimony in front of the Texas State House. People want to have choice not line the pockets of Big Pharma. When the word reaches the level of medicinal marijuana then this will be over for Big Pharma and I couldn’t be happier.
Because there’s no rational reason for doing so. That said, many pediatricians are willing to accommodate such requests.
1 Like
Uh, they do decide…
This may not be true in the near future. It may become law. So if you think vaccines may have some questionable side effects and don’t want your child to be vaccinated you may not have the choice. Which side do you come down on? Should parents have the right to choose?
Not if vaccines become mandated. What side do you support? Parents right to choose or compulsory vaccinations?
Yes. But the community has the right to prevent unvaccinated children from putting others at risk. This would be accomplished by refusing unvaccinated children admission to schools, close-quarters activities, etc.
2 Likes
Bingo.
2 Likes
Because if you’re a dickhead who didn’t get your kids vaccinated and they get sick, you’re putting other people’s kids at risk
Compulsory for parents whose judgment has been shown to be lacking enough to choose not to vaccinate their children.
The smart ones should be free to choose.
@Zeppelin795 Were you vaccinated?
If he ever took his kid to a daycare where some asshole parent brings their adorable little booger factory in because they don’t feel like dealing with it, he would understand the wildfire that diseases can be.
I’ve had some pretty damned offensive conversations with people that thought I was the asshole for telling them not to bring their little bundle of typhoid in to infect everybody else. Granted, the poor kid doesn’t know any better, but the parent really should.
Why would the other children be in danger if they are vaccinated?
1 Like
And how would this be accomplished? An IQ test?
1 Like
I was born in the late 60’s so there were far fewer vaccines in the schedule. I was vaccinated for a few things.
Because some children have certain traits that makes them unable to receive vaccinations. Herd immunity protects these children. The lower % of the population is getting vaccinations, the less power herd immunity has. Very very basic stuff.
Where is the proof of this?
WWWHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ------>
Thats the sound of a joke whizzing right over your head.