Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
Shuttlt, I always appreciate your thoughtful questions and ideas.  I feel that you are truly trying to understand the differences in pro and anti-vax philosophies. |
I'm glad. That is exactly how I would hope my posts would come across, and pretty much what I feel I'm trying to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
I don't think "safe" should be relative. If we (universal we) talk about relative safety it should be in those terms (x is safer than y instead of x is safe). Of course, I realize that you aren't saying that vaccines are "safe." But to talk about vaccination safety vs alternative - I think the possible difference is perspective. Perhaps it could be said that vaccination has benefits to a population vs the alternative (I don't think so, but for argument's sake).
|
If you not feeling that vaccines have benifits for the population is anything more than an intuitive thing (nothing wrong with that being the case) then I'm interested to hear more.
For me vaccines could be beneficial/harmful to the population and benificial/harmful to the individual. The effect on the population as a whole can then be benifical/harmful to me. I mean, irrespective of whether of whether my son gets one of these illnesses, I think it is harmful to him on some level if he has to live in a world were epidemics kill loads of poor people. I realize you don't think that would be a consequence, but I am still considering it. I see living in a world where people don't take care of the needs of others would be bad for my son. Equally, it would be bad in the same sense if parents didn't care for their children as more special than all other children. (I'm still working on this line of thinking, so it's not really fully formed yet).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
However, as a parent, I have to look at vaccinations benefit vs. the alternative for my healthy newborn. I can't (and IMO shouldn't) look at it from a public health perspective. My duty is to protect my child.
|
I do think there is an interesting argument to be had here. Who your responsibility should be to is a tough one to argue against. I would have to struggle very hard to chose something I thought was significantly to the detrement of my son for the benifit of society. I guess it depends a little on what you mean by significant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
So if a vaccination has a risk of "bad things" (which we all agree it does, right?) and my alternative is a healthy baby that MAY OR MAY NOT get a vaccine available disease which MAY OR MAY NOT be a severe illness then the decision is simple for me. My baby is healthy, I'm not going to *fix* what isn't broken especially when that fix has a chance of negative consequences.
|
OK. For me given that vaccinating may have negative consequences for my son and not vaccinating may also have negative consequences I find I have to start weighing the relative odds. For other people the though of the bad thing being as a result of something they've done rather than an act of God is too much to consider. I think this is illogical in the sense of reducing the likelihood of harm, but perfectly human and done by everybody at one time or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
I don't believe that small pox eradication has anything to do with the vaccine. Smallpox is controllable through quarantine and proper sanitation/health care. Regardless, some of us do believe that vaccines are never useful.
|
Any argument that says NEVER in it makes for some tough defending. Unless you really have done a detailed analysis of every vaccine and the history of it's use you must be saying that there is something in principle about vaccination which makes you believe it can never be useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
I think that vaccination is a flawed experiment in human health that time will show to be a huge mistake.
|
A lot of people clearly think this. Time may tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
I think the seen (serotype replacement, autoimmune diseases, etc.) and unseen consequences of vaccinations are hugely damaging to human health as a whole (see, now I can look at public health and not just my baby  ). |
This is an area I need to do more reading on. Is this the basis of your comment about vaccines never being useful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
My basic premise is that vaccination is bad - I don't want them to take thermisol out I want them to stop vaccinating and tinkering with the human immune systems inherent balance!
|
Do you really mean that vaccines are bad is a premise? Surely it's a conclusion? If it's a premise, fine, that's your choice. I'm not so sure how to argue against a premise though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
I don't hope to benefit from "herd immunity" I hope that the herd will stop vaccinating so they can find true health. Make sense?
|
It makes sense.
If I didn't believe vaccines did any good at the herd, or individual level I'd be right with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
This isn't anything I can give you an article on but I'm just trying to describe my mindset that is often at the root of pro/anti-vax discussions.
|
I'm not only interested in putting numbers to things. I find other peoples viewpoint challenging, interesting and informative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaigeC
Once again I think this is a forest (public health) or tree (my baby) thing. My baby doesn't have polio, polio is mild in most cases, paralytic polio may be DDT poisoning anyways...the risk (however small) of a vaccine giving my daughter polio is not worth it. I'm not going to fix what isn't broken when the fix has its own risks.
|
But not fixing has risks too.
OK. OK. I know that that is technically the case, but what's the difference with respect to whether or not things we vaccinate against can never be deadly or severe. If a virus that can cause cervical cancer isn't deadly and severe, I don't know what is.
:
