The risks of complications from contracting the disease are worse than the risks from the vaccine. Or, the benefits far outweigh the risks.
How do you feel about these statements?
I felt very uncomfortable. This statement tells me two things.
- Vaccines carry risks
- I and my child are viewed as statistics
When I was pregnant with the Wildflower, the doctor at the time recommended that I had an invasive test for Downs Syndrome, being that I was the ripe old age of 37. When I mentioned that I thought that the procedure carried a risk of miscarrying the baby, what could be a perfectly healthy baby, his reply was that the risk was about 1%.
In other words, yes, I could miscarry a perfectly healthy baby. I could lose the precious life inside me. But he, the doctor, was willing to take that risk.
Why? Because to him it wouldn't look too bad a statistic on his record. 1% of his patients losing their baby was something he could live with. But she was 100% my baby. I wasn't willing to take the risk. I think that the doctor thought I was a fool. I was willing to take that risk.
And did you notice the 3rd subtle message? Complications from the disease. In other words, the disease, such as is the case with childhood illnesses, is not the problem, but possible complications from it are the real issue.
So my questions became:
1. Am I willing to give my child vaccines with known/possible/unknown side effects?
2. Am I willing to approach my child as a statistic?
3. Am I able to prevent, minimise, or deal with possible complications from the naturally occuring disease?
With self-education, my own answers became, no, no, and yes.
I will deal with number 3 in another post.
Pro-vaccinators will make two main claims: that vaccines are safe and effective, and that there is no evidence for X vaccine causing Y side-effect.
The first claim is ludicrous simply because anything can be claimed to be safe if the right agenda and knowledge is behind it.
There was a time when asbestos and lead were perfectly acceptable materials to use in buildings and equipment, and even toys.
So you can read enough studies to make your head hurt and eyes water, and won't truly be any the wiser.
This can be a rather wieldy area, so I'm not going to discuss it here. Really, it could go on forever. Just google the research as well as the problems with the research, if you want to educate yourself in this area.
Two of my biggest issues with the research aspect is who conducts it - often the companies who produce the vaccines - and who funds it - often the companies who sell the vaccines. Conflict of interest anyone?
As for the second claim, 'side-effects' is sooooooo vague. Waiting for iron-clad proof that X causes Y is problematic. Scientists may have yet to uncover the specific molecule that indicates a direct cause and effect. The statement, 'there is no scientific evidence...', is not the same thing as, 'it is not true'. It just means that, they haven't found the evidence yet.
Secondly, side-effects may show up days, weeks, or years later! I mean, how long did it take for scientists to work out that smoking can cause lung cancer? Or that even passive smoking is harmful?
Furthermore, doctors are not required to report side-effects after a vaccination, and are not being taught to recognize vaccine reactions.
Scientists look for 100% direct proof and big numbers. 1% doesn't impresss them. If 100 children develop serious complications after a vaccine shot, this doesn't ruffle their feathers. If 1000, it still doesn't. But every one of those children is somebody's precious child.
A further problem is that they may not need to be looking for anything as direct as, X causes Y, but rather X causes Y in B children. Or even, X causes Y that then causes Z in B children!
Jenny McCarthy asked, "What number will it take for people just to start listening to what the mothers of children who have seen autism have been saying for years, which is, 'We vaccinated our baby and something happened.'"
When we hold up science as a divine field, or the only viable way of perceiving the world, we accept the answers. But if you took your perfectly healthy child to get vaccinated and two days later s/he began showing signs of autism, would you care about the lack of proof? Parents are dismissed as emotional and irrational. But I ask you, if this happened to your child, to a friend's child, would you vaccinate your next child?
"We surveyed over 9,000 boys in California and Oregon and found that vaccinated boys had a 155% greater chance of having a neurological disorder like ADHD or autism than unvaccinated boys." - Generation Rescue
This makes an impression on me, but not on the scientific mind.
Scientists cannot prove that there is a direct cause and effect and cannot make any claims that vaccines cause specific side-effects. I respect this. This is their job, finding 100% scientific proof.
Circumstantial evidence isn't science, the results of surveys like the above cannot be used as proof of anything. However, while there is no 100% proof that any ingredient in vaccines causes specific problems, my stance is this:
Until they can prove 100% that ingredients in vaccines do not cause specific problems, I will refrain from pumping them into my child.
 Outbreaks have occurred in 100% vaccinated populations. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. US Gov’t. 12/29/89;38(s-9):1-18.
 According to the US Food and Drug Administration, only 1-10 vaccine injured children is ever reported.” Investigative Report on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Vienna, VA: NVIC 1987.