Wow - I didn't realize this was a global issue. And in Africa - wtf? And UK too? Jesus . . . I can't tell if ignorance is bliss.
What really pisses me off is that the anti-vaxxers are themselves typically vaccinated. So they are basically trying to kill children, while they themselves remain unharmed.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
A vaccination calendar tested and approved doesn't make it perfect. If by "more than they should have taken", or "massive", he meant to say that the calendar is too agressive, as it probably was meant, it is a proper use. If he used it to say children aren't being vaccinated according to the calendar, which probably isn't what he meant, although it is what you are trying to make it sound as what he meant, then he isn't making sense.
Yes? I mean...my last sentence agrees with your post so I'm not sure if it come through that I agree. I was just saying that there is no consistent definition across medications what a safe "dose" looks like. It can be as high as multiple grams or as low as micrograms depending on the drug in question.
But to just be crystal clear -- the current strength and schedule of the vaccines doses has been proven to be safe and effective.
That doesn't mean, however, that improvements can't be made to make it even better. Which is where my comment about being open to revisiting the schedule -- if there are improvements in site irritation, side effects, or adverse reactions. That's all.
- - - Updated - - -
That's actually th opposite of how medicine is practiced. You do what is best in the long run. By your logic radiation treatment for cancer wouldn't be a thing.
It is variable, as it should be.
It is also possible we're beyond equilibrium point - in which case anti-anti-vaxxer hysteria is unwarranted, and those pushing for even more vaccination "to eradicate disease" are doing more harm then good despite having best intentions. Looking at extremes rather then averages, just like many anti-vaxxers do.
1) vaccinations and opiod prescription are like comparing tomatoes and aircraft carriers.
2) trying the false equivalency road to anti-vaxxers and vaxxers is really terrible. One has science and decades of experience and the other has....quackery.
3) calling people sheep doesn't make your argument stronger. In fact it usually delegitimizes your argument given how that term gets tossed around.
Even with their willful ignorance their logic still baffles me. That they would prefer their child be at risk of death rather than be at risk of autism. It isn't a real choice, but they have imagined it is, and they choose death.
That's not a valid argument for anything. Someone can believe the earth is flat, and it's real for them, but that doesn't make the earth any less round.
- - - Updated - - -
I've found that the whole vaccination debate is one of the few things that doesn't really have a strong partisan divide.
I would say let idiots be idiots but unfortunately their idiocy is a health risk to other people who for some reason cannot get vaccinated.
Just to get it out there, I don't have a firm belief that vaccines cause authism. But I have a firm belief that we don't evolve if we don't question things. Earth only became round in people's eyes when its flattness was questioned. Science's understanding of things evolve and things often become less black and white the more you understand it. Giving zero credibility to something means you won't bother trying to properly evaulate it. I think that by questioning the dogma of vaccines we may come to gather more information, from different sources of different backgrounds and then properly reevaluate risks. In the future we could look back to this day and teach our kids how once mankind thought that sumthinsumthinsumthin was true and now we know better, the same way we now teach our kids that the Earth is round.
That's exactly what i'm talking about - long run.
If you vaccinate your chance of encountering vaccine and related risks (however small) is 100%. Your chance of encountering disease is almost never 100%, and so compound risk of vaccine might (or might not, depending on chances) be higher in the long run.
Last edited by Shalcker; 2017-05-04 at 04:56 PM.
You are making the mistake of looking at the question of vaccination in a singular bubble. John Doe is looking at his kids and thinking "Hmmm...well...everyone ELSE will vaccinate so I won't because then I reduce the risk of side effects of the vaccines while still maintaining a low chance of exposing them to the illness."
The problem is that because of the mechanics of herd immunity the decision cannot be made in a bubble like that. The decisions has to be made at a societal level -- because otherwise herd immunity breaks down and the chances of John Doe's predictions being true in the long run fall apart. And everyone gets measles.