Originally Posted by prosciencemum
Isn't it obvious that if you believe vaccines are very dangerous you wouldn't use them.
What we debate is how reasonable and science based that conclusion is. Not the choice which is made after the conclusion is reached.....
I've met a lot of parents who believe that the risk of complications from vaccination is worse than the risk of complications from disease.
The vast majority of them came to that conclusion after two things happened:
1) Their child, or the child of someone close to them, had an adverse effect from vaccination.
2) They looked at studies of vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy, and vaccine effect on autoimmunity. They also looked at the enormous financial conflicts of interest in both industry and government, and that certainly colors their perception of the trustworthiness of the industry--as it should.
I used to believe that vaccines were safe, effective, and virtually risk-free. I've learned the hard way that I was wrong. My children's pediatrician, who recommended the vaccines in the first place, also now believes that the risks of vaccines has been greatly understated, and that we are only beginning to understand some of the undesired effects, such as autoimmune disorders.
You've said before that you don't want your daughter's risk of complications from asthma to be increased by her catching a vaccine-available disease from someone who didn't believe in vaccinations.
How do you weigh your child's health against the health of someone else's child? Is it reasonable and science-based to expect someone else to do an invasive procedure to protect YOUR child, when we don't yet know all the long-term ramifications of the invasive procedure?
Let's assume--just for the moment--that we already know every possible adverse autoimmune and neurological effect that vaccines can cause, and that there are no undiscovered ones.
Let's say that twice as many children have a predisposition to asthmatic complications, vs the number of children who have a predisposition to vaccine complications. Do you believe that the second, smaller group, should submit to an invasive procedure, against their parents' wishes, to protect the first group, just because there might be fewer of them?
I'd really like to know how you would justify that.