Before I get into the TL;DR part, I will cut to the chase. Whether or not you have (yourself or) your children vaccinated, should be a matter of totally free choice, free of coercion or disincentives, and fully informed of the risks of vaccination or being unvaccinated.
It’s pretty simple really.
However, we currently have the Australian Federal Government announcing their ‘disincentives for objectors’ as well as the Californian Authorities applying disincentives for objectors/abstainers. On the surface, this could read as ‘benevolent’ governmental concern for its citizens, or the flipside, a stealthy dictatorship.
Let’s nip that in the bud. A benevolent government would not hold a figurative gun to its citizen’s heads and effectively force them to participate in a medical programme. That’s right, the only conclusion is that these authorities are actually dictatorships-by-stealth. Free choice, abstention, are not options under such proposals, particularly for single mothers and the poor. That is Problem #1.
Problem #2, is what they are actually pushing onto their citizens. These governments are pushing these vaccination programmes as if they were a 100% guarantee that your child will be safe. Nuh uh. Most vaccines do not have 100% effectiveness on the population.
- just read here from the US CDC “In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective.”
- or from the site TB Facts: “In various clinical trials the estimates of effectiveness have ranged from 80% protection to no benefit, and the reasons for these differences are still not clearly understood.”
- or from the CDC again: “How effective is MMR vaccine? The measles vaccine is very effective. One dose of measles vaccine is about 93% effective at preventing measles if exposed to the virus and two doses are about 97% effective.”
- on Whooping Cough, from the ABC: “However, it does mean that a significant proportion of infections will occur in vaccinated individuals. […] “That’s telling you that the vaccine is working and if you do the numbers, that equates to about an 80 per cent effectiveness of the vaccine.”
Of course, you could search yourself for the effectiveness of various vaccines. I found a lot of those with a Google search of ‘vaccines 80% effective’. So the majority of vaccines fall within the range of 80-95% effective. None are 100%, although some of the measles (with boosters) score highest. It also depends when you got vaccinated for measles/rubella, and whether or not a live vaccine was used. I definitely would have been immunised with the live MMR, and got measles anyway (unsure which variety, way too young to remember), but have not had mumps, so presumably, that one took. TMI on Davina’s health!
Immunity effectiveness is one part of the equation, but what is little talked about is risk, and yes, there are risks going with the vaccination programmes (Problem #3). They are not 100% safe. Children, particularly young babies with very undeveloped immune systems, can have bad reactions to these vaccinations. Some can even die, or be permanently brain damaged (as happened with the “4 in 1” programme in the early 60s, which I believe was primarily US). Hell, in the 1960s they thought giving pregnant women Thalidomide was a great idea for morning sickness, and we know how that turned out. Thankfully they are more cautious about what is prescribed or recommended for pregnant women. But back then, there was a 99.9% chance your family doctor or OB-GYN was male, complete with the “Doctor knows best” attitude going on. Ah yes, I do remember the absolute God-like demeanour of (male) doctors, that went well beyond the 60s.
OK, by this time in the post, your faith in the male dominated medical profession is a wee bit shakey. Understandable.
Don’t get me wrong, it is a very nice ideal to aim for the eradication of diseases, particularly those with devastating effects even death. And some of those immunisation programmes are targeting those very devastating diseases. But none have been eradicated, despite some very good uptake of the immunisation programmes. Which brings us back to, none of the immunisation programmes are 100% effective, for various reasons.
The Pro-VAX lobby worship at the God-like altar of immunisation (and yes, behave like a bunch of cultists). Sorry to burst their bubble on that, but no, you cannot force others to do something just to benefit yourself (which is actually the crux of the Pro-VAX stance). The bottom line, is you do what you want to do, or believe is right, but you cannot force others to ‘protect’ you or your own.
So the next portion of the post is to examine their position, or arguments.
First off the block, the buzz-term “Herd Immunity“.
Either the ‘herd’ is immune, or it is not. Just like being ‘a little bit pregnant’. It is an absolute. If only 80% of your ‘herd’ is immune from vaccination, then your ‘herd’ is not fully immune, is it? Certainly there is disease reduction, but it is no way, shape or form, immune. Four fifths of your ‘herd’ is immune, but not your entire herd.
Now the non-immune part of the herd, which is not entirely made up of your non-vaccinated herd, but actually includes part (one-fifth) of your vaccinated ‘herd’, plus the not-immunised. Yikes, the 80% just dropped below 80%. These numbers are looking a bit shaky now. Generally the pro-vax figures are around 90%, so that means that around 30% of your ‘herd’ has no protection, and could potentially (but not absolutely) succumb to the disease. So yes, in actual fact, the 2/3rds of the problem there is coming from your vaccinated ‘herd’, not your unvaccinated ‘herd’. Yet the focus is always upon the unvaccinated. Sounds like Fallacy #1.
Fallacy #2, is the illogical (Pro-VAX) argument of “you are putting my child at risk by not having your child vaccinated!”
This honestly, is the one that sticks in my craw. Yes I have a craw, deal with it.
If, as the Pro-VAXers claim, vaccination is the Holy Grail of protection, and your child has been vaccinated (a false assumption, but assume a 100% protection for the moment), then how on earth can an unvaccinated child infect the vaccinated one? This is a logical fallacy.
However, we know in reality, that vaccinations are not in fact, 100% effective. Who is to say that the infecting child, and the infected child, both don’t have this ‘immunity’ to the actual vaccine? Who is to ‘blame’? Because it sounds like a lot of blaming on immune systems that individuals have zero control over (ie whether the vaccine is effective or not). Again, it is Fallacy #2.
Coming back around to safety, no immunisation is guaranteed safe. In recent years the HPV vaccine was rolled out to teenaged and pre-teen girls (under the name of ‘preventing cervical cancer’). The early HPV vaccines at least, did not protect for all strains of HPV. Apart from that, feminists questioned whether this was in fact a guinea pig experiment on teenaged girls, because teenaged boys were not then, routinely vaccinated (and in the vein of “it takes two to tango”) coupled with STD disease transmission is more likely from male to female than the other way around, it really did seem like teenaged girls were the guinea pigs for this ‘trial’, which was a roll-out, not a trial. As it turned out, teenaged girls did die (or were otherwise damaged) by the vaccine, but I am sure it was deemed “acceptable losses” by the drug companies and government alike. After all, girls are not really valued in this society (hence the female roll-out). Worryingly, the governments/BigPharma are rolling out an even more potentially dangerous version.
The feminist view is of course, there is no such thing as “acceptable losses”, particularly with a health programme that is meant to be preventative.
So who really benefits from ALL these immunisation programmes? There is only one answer, and that is BigPharma, the multi-national pharmaceutical companies that basically ‘rule the world’. Whether they get their funds via government sponsored immunisation programmes, or privately paid-for immunisation, they are the ones pocketing the profits from all this. And most governments around the world are not immune from a little kick-back from ‘corporate sponsorship’, one way or another. Yes I said governmental corruption.
The purpose of this post is not to persuade you one way or another, but to get you to:
- Weigh the benefits of immunisation
- Be aware of the risks of immunisation
- Don’t fall for catchy phrases like ‘herd immunity’
- Do your own reseach, for each and every vaccine or programme
- Decide what is best for you and your family
No one should tell you what to do, with regard to your family’s health, that is a personal decision—and only you can decide what is right, or what is wrong for your family. However, you do not have the right to lecture anyone else on what they should or should not do, particularly when it pertains to your own situation.
All we know for sure, is that immunisation is a bit of a crap shoot, no guarantee of success, and risks that hardly anyone wants to talk about. We have governments closing down any counter views, and effectively mandating mandatory programmes, and a silent BigPharma profiting from it all. At the very least, it should make you question the mainstream (Pro-VAX) view, and weigh your options/risk. Vaccinations do save lives, but they also cost lives.
As a post-script:
My mother dutifully vaccinated me for all the recommended stuff. At about 4-6 months, the night of a vaccination, I apparently turned blue and went into convulsions. The local GP did manage to intervene, and yes I am writing blog posts today because of that intervention. The MMR vaccination I received, did not stop me getting measels (and yes, I remember how shitty it was, and how I wanted to go back to school!). I have never had mumps, even though a teenager I went to school with, contracted it (it also could have been outside the contagious period).
Do you reseach, you decide what is best.