Carol wrote:After the false information came out linking vaccinations to autism, the MMR vaccination was divided into 3 separate doses and the patient could get vaccinations preservative free, (because thimerasol (sp) was the ingredient in question)-- at least around here and I assume that's true of every where else. So steps have been taken to reduce the risk of reactions, and put less stress on the child's body.
That's what bothers me about this entire fiasco, and the medical establishment's attempts to burn Wakefield at the stake. If there was no truth to Wakefield's claims, then why did the medical community feel obligated to make those changes to the vaccinations. One does not correct a problem that does not exist (that's impossible). One corrects a problem because the problem actually exists, despite loud (but unsubstantiated) denials by the medical community.
IMO there's no question that Wakefield manipulated data to promote his own agenda (to get rich by promoting an alternative vaccine). But manipulating (cherry-picking) data is so common these days that it's hardly remarkable. And while cherry-picking data to promote an agenda is definitely unethical, it doesn't necessarily mean that all of the data are invalid. And it cannot be disputed that the majority of researchers (not only medical researchers) do this routinely. Wakefield was probably burned at the stake because he stepped on too many toes in the medical community. It's not considered to be good etiquette to attack prominent cash cows in an industry. Show me a research report where data were not carefully chosen to validate the original goals of the project and I'll show you a very rare research publication. The problem is that medicine (and indeed, all of science) continues to fail to address these issues. Instead, they just pretend that the problem isn't important, even though inaccurate research conclusions dominate the scientific literature.
Odds Are, It's Wrong - Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics
It Ain't Necessarily So: Why Much of the Medical Literature Is Wrong
Yes, instances of adverse reactions to vaccines are considered rare (except by the victims themselves), but we have members here who have personally experienced such adverse reactions to vaccinations (not MMR — most reactions were in response to a flu shot), and their lives have been changed forever (most of them now have mastocytosis). So we know that those reactions do occur. These particular reactions occurred in adults. What would have happened if they had been very young instead, with still-developing (and therefore highly vulnerable) immune systems?
Decisions about vaccinations made by the medical community are based on statistics, and when the numbers of certain classes of adverse events are statistically insignificant, those classes are effectively ignored, and the medical community pretends that they don't exist. Medical professionals typically sees only 2 colors — black and white (and (I'm not referring to ethnicity here). They never see a gray scale, because they perceive that as making their profession too complicated. For example, either a patient has a disease, or they do not. A patient is not allowed to be in the early stages of a disease if they fail to meet all of the mandatory diagnostic criteria for that disease — no spectrums allowed. And statistically "insignificant" numbers tend to be arbitrarily ignored. So are the vaccines safe now? Who knows?
Hopefully the risk has been reduced so that it truly is statistically insignificant.
When I wrote the original post in this topic, I had no idea that this is where it would lead, but for better or for worse, here are my thoughts:
I'm a strong advocate of personal freedoms, and I certainly don't have any objections to anyone who wants to take a vaccine, having unrestrained access to them. They should have that right. And on the other hand, I strongly believe that anyone who opposes vaccinations (for whatever reason), should certainly have the right to decline them. That's their right. And it should be the right of parents (not the government, or society, or whomever) to make that decision for their kids. Contrary to the policies of certain countries (think communist China for example, and increasingly, our own government, sadly), the government (or society) doesn't own children. Parents should be free agents. After all, they are not raising their kids strictly for the purposes of the government. Or are they? After all, the government needs all the taxpayers it can get, if it intends to be able to continue to fund all the Ponzi schemes that it operates.
This country was founded on freedom, and here and there, despite fervent political efforts by many who have the money to promote their own personal agendas dedicated to the suppression of the personal freedoms of others, freedom still exists in this great country (though there is some question as to how long it will continue to remain great). Freedom means the right to choose (without undue restrictions).
Americans are strange creatures (and this presumably applies to the residents of other developed countries as well). They promote the rights of other species, while continuing to restrict their own freedoms. They will fight tooth and nail, and kill each other, over the right of a wolf to kill an innocent deer or lamb, or whatever. If you have ever personally witnessed it, you know that there are few things more cruel than a wolf killing a lamb, or deer, etc. It's an absolutely terrifying event for the prey species, and a blood ritual for the wolves. Yet we embrace that concept and promote it, because it's a part of the laws of nature, doncha know. But if that lamb, or deer, (or dog, or cat, or whatever) happens to be a personal pet, woe be to anyone or anything that dares to even so much as think about harming a single hair on its body, even if it happens accidentally.
So we clearly have no problem with totally ignoring any rights of prey species such as sheep, deer, and all the others in the food chain of nature, as long as we don't consider them to be a personal family member. The only right we are willing to concede for them is the right to die a violent death. And I suppose that a huge part of the rationalization behind that policy is our recognition that we survive by relying on the consumption of those same prey species ourselves. So if we can do it, then we figure that it should be OK for wolves to do the same (except that they use much less sophisticated slaughtering and processing techniques).
So we respect and defend violence in nature, and we accept that deer and lambs have no right to expect any security (in the form of freedom from fatal risks) in their lives. Their lives are at risk every minute of every day, and we are apparently OK with that. And yet, we are not willing to accept even 1 iota of risk in our own lives, if we can possibly prevent it.
While that sounds neat on the surface, it's totally unrealistic (as evidenced by nature). It's impossible to live without risk. Risk is all around us, but much of it is out of our control. So out of frustration I suppose, we attempt to micromanage risk in certain select places, presumably because it makes us feel as though we are actually accomplishing something against insurmountable odds (despite the fact that these particular risks are insignificant in terms of overall risk).
The bottom line is, if freedom is to be preserved in this great country, we can't continue to keep hacking away at personal freedoms, because eventually we will wake up 1 day and realize that we have no personal freedoms remaining. The government will dictate every aspect of our lives, every minute of our day (and while we are asleep, because the government will make 8 hours of sleep mandatory for everyone).
Everyone should have the right to choose or decline options such as whether or not to choose certain vaccinations. And no one should have the right to dictate that one or the other of those groups should not have the freedom to choose either option. Common sense dictates (and so does the law) that one doesn't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. And likewise, common sense should recognize that certain vaccines are not safe for everyone, and therefore those vaccines should not be mandatory.
That's what freedom is all about. The alternative is totalitarianism. Back when I was in grade school (back in the early days of this country, when most people still understood what the constitution stood for, and respected it, and cherished freedom), totalitarianism was viewed as evil.
If the government and/or the medical community wants to promote the measles vaccine (or any other vaccine), instead of spending millions/billions of dollars promoting the vaccines with propaganda/BS, and instead of charging for it, why don't they just pay anyone who brings in a kid to be vaccinated, a small monetary stipend. They would be lined up around the block, before you could blink twice.
Of course since it's all about money, I'm sure that they wouldn't consider this option.
In the real world, everything involves some degree of risk. We can't get out of bed without exposing ourselves to some sort of risk, however minimal. There's no such thing as a 100 % safe vaccine, medication, or whatever. But as long as the risk is very low, it's acceptable. They should be acknowledging/selling that point, rather than denying that any risk exists. Denying the existence of risk, when common sense dictates that some degree of risk is always present, kills their credibility. But I realize that maybe my antiquated beliefs have no place in the modern world.
Tex
.jpg){kind=avatar}
