California turning Liberals into Republicans on one issue (Mandatory Vaccinations)

Nov 2009
33,102
21,128
SoCal
The thing is, vaccines are being questioned on the basis of....what? What science tells you that they are dangerous? Support or opposition to something should be based on evidence. There really isn't any evidence that vaccines are harmful. NOT getting vaccinated is dangerous, and not just to the individual making that choice but to everyone around them.
It's mostly anecdotal. Some number of parents take their kid in, get shots, and in many cases, there is a dramatic change. It's not like they are in a controlled environment and the parents are not scientists, so they can never prove anything, and the drug companies can easily slide behind the old correlation is not causation, and drop it there.

But instead of developing a test to confirm that a child is not going to have an adverse reaction, they shout them down, call them crazy, and they are outcast as conspiracy theorists. And their dead or crippled children are written off, without further investigation... in my opinion, because there's no money in it.

I have three kids on the autism spectrum, and in earlier times we vaccinated on a delayed schedule. Didn't make sense to us for our child to get a vaccination against hepatitis B on the day they are born--that's to protect kids who go back to housing projects with drug addicts sharing needles and leaving them around for kids to get stuck on. There are a LOT of vaccine shots in the protocol--36 as I recall, spread over 5-6 years. All our kids got vaccinated all the way by the time they reached school age, though. We never considered NOT getting them vaccines. That's crazy, really. Again, no evidence.
I mentioned earlier, that I read Doctor Sears book and the idea of an extended vaccination schedule resonated with me. It was not until Charles was born and developed issues that not vaccinating even got on our radar. We'll see how it goes with him. Also, I feel differently about older vaccines than newer ones. Still, I want to see Charles catch up with where he should be, and perhaps when that happens we and his doctor will take a fresh look at the vaccines.
 
Nov 2009
33,102
21,128
SoCal
I can understand your concern based on your own anecdotal evidence. I can respect your choices. But again, individual cases aren't evidence. The vaccines could have been coincidence with your brother, for example. We don't have any substantial evidence of mental impairment across populations that can be attributed to vaccines. With tens of millions of shots being given to kids, surely there would be some records to show that some portion of them were impaired afterward. There isn't. It's not something that could be easily covered up.
I think its easier to cover up than you think.

The issue is that a vaccine injury is not typically going to happen fast enough to be caught by the doctor administering the vaccine, so you go home. The parents are not doctors or scientists, so all they have is what they observe against what they remember, and it's never going to be science, and no matter how many times it happens, it doesn't happen often enough that the old correlation does not equal causation essentially saves the drug companies from having to take a serious look.

There also is a ton of peer pressure against parents, doctors, etc against even asking questions. Doctor Sears is villainized as antivax even though his alternate schedule included all the vaccinations. That doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Feb 2010
70,965
47,823
USA
It's mostly anecdotal. Some number of parents take their kid in, get shots, and in many cases, there is a dramatic change. It's not like they are in a controlled environment and the parents are not scientists, so they can never prove anything, and the drug companies can easily slide behind the old correlation is not causation, and drop it there.
Define "many." It's a very squishy term. By mathematical definition, it can mean any number more than 2. Is it 1 in 10,000? One in 100,00? Seems like those are the sorts of odds you're talking about. What are the chances of getting the disease against which the vaccine is supposed to work? More than that? Every decision involves risk, including the decision to do nothing.

But instead of developing a test to confirm that a child is not going to have an adverse reaction, they shout them down, call them crazy, and they are outcast as conspiracy theorists. And their dead or crippled children are written off, without further investigation... in my opinion, because there's no money in it.
Or because the complications you're referring to are so rare. And was there ever an explanation for WHY your brother got the results he did? Was it the pathogen itself? Some other chemical in the vaccine? If you don't know, you can't develop an effective test because you don't know what to test. And if there are relatively few people suffering in this way, it's difficult to determine the exact cause.



I mentioned earlier, that I read Doctor Sears book and the idea of an extended vaccination schedule resonated with me. It was not until Charles was born and developed issues that not vaccinating even got on our radar. We'll see how it goes with him. Also, I feel differently about older vaccines than newer ones. Still, I want to see Charles catch up with where he should be, and perhaps when that happens we and his doctor will take a fresh look at the vaccines.
And yet most of the discussion in this thread is about those older vaccines. Polio. Measles. Pertussis. Diphtheria. Mumps. These have been around for decades or even multiple generations. And the diseases they protect against really did used to kill tons of kids. Like one in five or so.
 
Likes: labrea
Feb 2010
70,965
47,823
USA
I think its easier to cover up than you think.

The issue is that a vaccine injury is not typically going to happen fast enough to be caught by the doctor administering the vaccine, so you go home. The parents are not doctors or scientists, so all they have is what they observe against what they remember, and it's never going to be science, and no matter how many times it happens, it doesn't happen often enough that the old correlation does not equal causation essentially saves the drug companies from having to take a serious look.
If there really were tens of thousands of kids harmed in this way, it would show up in the data, and someone would see it. And science is a competitive business, where repeatable results are the coin of the realm.

There also is a ton of peer pressure against parents, doctors, etc against even asking questions. Doctor Sears is villainized as antivax even though his alternate schedule included all the vaccinations. That doesn't make any sense to me.
And yet scientists are skeptics, by nature and by training. You're talking about a conspiracy here that would involve thousands of people. It's not like one corporation deciding internally that the Pinto can have a dangerous gas tank because the cost of the lawsuits will be less than the cost of a redesign.

If there's a scandal here, it's already been exposed. It's not like this question isn't on people's radar. If the data supported this supposition, there'd be SOMEONE at a medical school somewhere--some ornery cuss with tenure and grant budget--who'd find it and show that there IS evidence to support this concern about vaccines.

in the end, there's risk to everything. The risk of getting terrible diseases is worse than the risks from vaccines. There's no evidence to support any other position.
 
Likes: NightSwimmer
Dec 2018
4,821
1,820
Florida
Agreed. This is a public health issue. Which if we share values politically, this should be one of them.

I can align with a few in this thread. I'm very liberal when it comes to healthcare - as are many middle of the road conservatives.
I Hate to admit it, but the more I deal with hospitals and insurance companies? The more I’ve gotten more liberal/pro regulation. But it is because I recognize that these companies have reached the point of monopolies and are no longer competing. And we all get screwed.
 
Mar 2012
57,873
39,432
New Hampshire
The thing is, vaccines are being questioned on the basis of....what? What science tells you that they are dangerous? Support or opposition to something should be based on evidence. There really isn't any evidence that vaccines are harmful. NOT getting vaccinated is dangerous, and not just to the individual making that choice but to everyone around them.

I have three kids on the autism spectrum, and in earlier times we vaccinated on a delayed schedule. Didn't make sense to us for our child to get a vaccination against hepatitis B on the day they are born--that's to protect kids who go back to housing projects with drug addicts sharing needles and leaving them around for kids to get stuck on. There are a LOT of vaccine shots in the protocol--36 as I recall, spread over 5-6 years. All our kids got vaccinated all the way by the time they reached school age, though. We never considered NOT getting them vaccines. That's crazy, really. Again, no evidence.
I think thats the scary part, the number and intensity of the vaccinations. My nurse friend says that a lot of pediatricians around the 18 month old mark, suggest 9 vaccinations, all at once. They put them all in one shot and boom. She said it scared the hell out of parents and those with pets knew veterinarians never give more than 3 vaccines at once due to overloading their systems. So they would ask about delaying or spreading them out. Most decent doctors would agree and it would proceed. But she said there has been a few doctors who do push the issue and say "well if we have to break up the vaccinations, that means more individual shots." So parents either agreed to the one big vaccination or pretty much ran screaming into the anti vax groups. You frequently see memes about how we vaccinate babies all at once yet veterinarians advise spreading them out. That message affects decisions and makes it look like Big Pharma is involved. Also if a child is heading into pre school at 3 they often do require all vaccinations by then so delaying them doesnt always happen.
 
Mar 2012
57,873
39,432
New Hampshire
Doubt it. I've heard stories from other parents of kids with disabilities about their fears that the government would come for their children. Thing is...the government doesn't WANT our children. They don't have facilities for them. They don't have funding for them. They don't want to take kids out of their families.

I'm pretty sure what you're suggesting is unconstitutional. Not vaccinating doesn't contribute to anyone's delinquency and it's not an imminent threat to their health or safety.
Thats not really true. We did see last spring where NY was going after those who didnt vaccinate by banning them going anywhere in public. While its not taking children away it is limiting them and where they can go.

New York County Bans Unvaccinated Children From Public Places | Smart News | Smithsonian
 
Feb 2010
70,965
47,823
USA
I think thats the scary part, the number and intensity of the vaccinations. My nurse friend says that a lot of pediatricians around the 18 month old mark, suggest 9 vaccinations, all at once. They put them all in one shot and boom. She said it scared the hell out of parents and those with pets knew veterinarians never give more than 3 vaccines at once due to overloading their systems. So they would ask about delaying or spreading them out. Most decent doctors would agree and it would proceed. But she said there has been a few doctors who do push the issue and say "well if we have to break up the vaccinations, that means more individual shots." So parents either agreed to the one big vaccination or pretty much ran screaming into the anti vax groups. You frequently see memes about how we vaccinate babies all at once yet veterinarians advise spreading them out. That message affects decisions and makes it look like Big Pharma is involved. Also if a child is heading into pre school at 3 they often do require all vaccinations by then so delaying them doesnt always happen.
I've never heard of a vaccination that combined more than three. Nine at once? What is such a shot called? I don't believe that this choice you outline is a real one because vaccinations aren't produced that combine innoculations against nine different diseases. Details, please.
 
Likes: NightSwimmer