To that I say, "Huzzah!" Let's bask in our freedom of speech shall we? Hopefully it is a freedom that will not be taken from us soon. (Honestly, with a voice as small as mine, and a following to match, I doubt this will make much of an impact. Yet, what is a blog for but a container for all the many thoughts that threaten to overwhelm my busy mind if not organized in this way?)
There is a lot of controversy going on right now over the whole vaccine debate. Because of the Disneyland incident, people are taking sides in this heated argument. Some are pretty sure that the unvaccinated are to blame for this outbreak, and that they are compromising the health of those who cannot be vaccinated.
Yet, the other side, those who are anti-vaccination, or who believe in partial or delayed vaccination (The idea being that you must allow a child's immune system to fully develop naturally first, and to discover their specific, individual sensitivities before exposing them to certain chemicals in order to properly weigh the risks.) This side is arguing that the unvaccinated are not to blame.
I have been studying both sides of the argument, for some time, and believe that I, at least somewhat understand where each side is coming from, in my small way. Perhaps the unvaccinated truly are destroying the whole herd immunity concept, but then, if that is so, I can't help wondering about the immunocompromised, that everyone admits cannot be vaccinated. Their very existence proves that herd immunity might in fact be the myth that one side proclaims it to be. Plus, they also like to ask us, how did those people become that way? Are there really any who fall into this category who have not ever had a shot? Or was it the shot that caused them their current condition?
Still, I am not here today to discuss who is to blame. In fact, at the end of the day, I do not think it matters so much. It seems to me that the media is having a heyday adding fuel to the fire of this argument, but it seems to me that the argument in and of itself is rather pointless. No side is ever going to convince the other side of who is right. No one can win in this debate unless everyone suddenly had the same exact experience and circumstances, which is obviously impossible.
"The only reality that any individual knows is their own experience." Thus, with so many of us experiencing vastly different realities, it is a fruitless effort to suppose that we can all be brought to a single consensus about this issue, no matter how many experiences or opinions we are bombarded with. So why are we letting the media manipulate us? They are the only beneficiaries of this argument.
With that said, my only real concern today is the question of whether or not mandating every American citizen to be vaccinated is really as just a cause as people say it is.
Let us examine some different ideas for a moment, and try to put religion and specific political parties aside for the moment, shall we?
As far as forcing every American citizen to be vaccinated, even if that would protect us all to the degree that those who support the mandate state, what about those living here who are not citizens? Can there be herd immunity, if we are surrounded by people who are not only not citizens but have no way of being tracked by the government to mandate that they are injected?
Until we can guarantee that every person living in our country is an American citizen, then trying to force vaccination through governmental policy for the sake of making sure EVERYONE is injected, does not really make much sense to me.
Likewise, until we can prevent all tourists and outsiders from coming into our public places, whether they entered through legal means or not, we cannot possibly ensure that there will not be some germs passed around. Okay, so maybe the tourist worry isn't an issue because, according to the following report, it's usually American travelers who bring the diseases back with them. So should we ban world travel to American Citizens?
Also, just for the sake of perspective, let us see if we can find out about how many people are living here without citizenship right now? Okay, so say it's only 3-4% as the links above suggest. Are we going to mandate that they get vaccinated too? Or will they get off free because they are such a small group? Does that not seem like a double standard for Americans who have chosen not to get the injection? According to this article, the unvaccinated citizen is only about 2% of the population, despite what the media has led you to believe.
Of course, maybe we can't compare the two groups because one could argue that even illegal immigrants can receive the shots for free in some cases, where you can be so poor that the government covers the costs for you. However, chances are, even if some take advantage of this, (and the above article suggests that most will not), are they still living with others who are unvaccinated? Even children who are legal because they were born here, might be living with adults who are not citizens.
So one side might ask you to consider the possibility of another Disneyland scenario. Let's say in this case the person who carried an illness was an illegal immigrant. California is not only the location for Disneyland, it is also the state with the highest number of illegal immigrants as of 2013.
Anyone with enough money can waltz into Disneyland. Last I checked people were not required to prove their citizenship to go there. After all, we benefit from the funds of tourists from other countries who pay to see our attractions. Could we really make citizenship and proof of vaccination a requirement for entering the happiest place on earth?
What about grocery stores or restaurants? Can we deny people the right to buy our food based upon the fact that they are not citizens, and have not been mandated to be injected?
So we have this individual who comes into a public setting, and perhaps is carrying a disease. Maybe they contracted it from a visit back home, or maybe they had visitors or packages sent to them by their relatives in one of various countries (I'm not just talking Mexico here, there are other people who come here illegally, including those from India, China, The Philippines, etc.)
Now let's say that in this scenario, this person is the only one in the public place who has not been vaccinated. Despite the fact that every American surrounding that individual is vaccinated, because the injections cannot guarantee that they will protect you, then as everyone on both sides has already agreed, this person could pass on that disease to a fair number of people, even if every single one of them, our subject excluded, had been injected. Then as they leave and go to other public places, it can spread to others who have been injected and so forth.
I believe this is why many people believe that herd immunity is a myth. Unless the whole world over could be forced to be injected, there is no herd. The borders of our lands are too blurred. We are tied to the world through airlines, among other things, that make complete isolation impractical.
So here arises the question of choice. If you truly believe that removing an individual's choice in the matter is the right answer, then by the same logic we should also outlaw anything that might cause anyone harm.
Thus, knives of all types, weapons, any sharp object down to nail scissors, sewing pins and toothpicks would be illegal.
Cars would easily be illegal as they kill so many. Mosquitoes, which top the list for number one killer, should thereby be illegal. On that note, nearly all, (if not all) animals, both wild and domesticated would be illegal, based on the chance that they might cause yourself or another person harm either through direct injury or the spread of parasites or disease.
Those are obviously some of the most extreme examples, let's look at some less extreme ones that are probably already being debated.
In fact, I know that the marijuana issue is definitely being debated. Because it can be harmful when burned into a vapor of smoke (and I'd like to ask, how many things can you list that aren't harmful when turned into smoke?) many people agree that this substance should remain illegal.
Others, seeing the benefits of the plant when used in other ways, would disagree with the idea that it needs to be wholly banned.
Then there's the other smoking issue. What if cigarettes and other tobacco products were made completely illegal in the US? Studies have proven that secondhand smoke is harmful and can cause lung cancer in individuals, even if it does not immediately cause it in the person who is smoking firsthand.
Think for just a moment with me, back to the Disneyland incident. Can you recognize the parallel there? Should a person be allowed to smoke when he might possibly infect others and cause them harm or even death?
This article reports that 145,000 deaths were attributed to measles world wide last year.
Yet, tobacco products reportedly cause 148,000 deaths every year in the US alone.
Comparing the US with the rest of the world, I might also point out, is not comparing apple to apples. There are many other contributing factors to the cause, spread and ability to recover from a disease.
So let's see how many deaths were attributed to measles in the US alone last year. Wait? Zero? Hmm, okay. let's say in the last ten years . . . Still zero? Okay. I think I've made my point.
Still, I think most people, especially those who smoke or who have smoked will agree that it's not fair to force people to quit. That they should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, knowing fully what those risks entail. Everyone also ought to admit that making tobacco illegal, despite the obvious risks to us all, will not entirely eradicate those products from society. It would only give the black market one more product to capitalize on.
And for those who think capitalism is a dirty word, consider that the pharmaceutical industry capitalizes on the distribution of vaccines.
Just imagine as a business owner, what the mandating of your product for every law abiding citizen by the government would do for your industry! You'll need to order that indoor swimming pool soon, so you can swim in your profits!
But please, try not to squeal too loudly; loud sounds should be illegal because they can cause deafness.
So you might sit back an sigh. . . If only everyone wasn't an idiot. If only everyone shared my point of view.
Yes, to be sure. If only we could just make germs illegal. Then we might get somewhere, but germs will not be controlled by ridiculous laws anymore than people will be. Sure, maybe a percentage of people will allow themselves to be controlled, but remember how there is always that 1% of germs left over by your 99% antibacterial soap? Why should we expect people to behave any differently than germs? In fact, haven't we recently discovered that killing so many germs is actually harming us? Now we're back to square one.
So maybe we should consider that it takes all kinds. In regards to people and germs, maybe we should be less judgmental about which ones have value and which ones don't. Perhaps nature has known what she is doing all along. Isn't that what Darwin would argue? Survival of the fittest? By that logic maybe we should let the diseases take whom they will and stop fighting against nature who is sure to adapt and bite back. Hmm, the mind boggles. . .
Back to the whole vaccine debate: Why don't we make it illegal for anyone to state an opinion about vaccine safety unless they have studied all of the warnings on the vaccine package inserts, and passed a comprehensive test on the same subject?
(After all, people who argue a thing based only upon what they have been told by others, with no personal research of their own, give me a headache.
Headaches should be illegal.)
Once we have perused those package inserts, it becomes a bit more clear why some have chosen to take the risk of disease which could be cured with the right treatments, over the risk of permanent side effects and life debilitating diseases.
By the same logic that anything potentially harmful should be illegal, then vaccines themselves should be illegal.
When all is said and done, I'm really not going to stress myself out about what you have decided is individually right for you . . . in regards to anything really. Which is the entire point of this post.
YOU should be allowed to decide what risks you are going to take, yes, even if those risks that you are taking might somehow affect others around you.
If we lived in a perfect world, where every citizen of this planet was law abiding and everything was always fair. . . Where every single person---men, women and children have all of their basic needs met, and where no one ever entertains a selfish desire . . . Then we might discuss the possibility of passing a law that will benefit 'the greater good.' Until then, perhaps we could use all this energy to try and make that perfect world a reality rather than displacing our anger on each other.
Be angry at the harmful things themselves, not at the people who are trying the best they know how, to solve the problem. Actually, I might suggest that anger is pretty pointless even when directed at the source of harm. I would suggest understanding your enemies is the best way to know how to defeat them. I think we can all agree that this is our real goal. Trying different methods to defeat a common enemy. So we should not be opposing each other at all. If harm is the enemy, and we are all seeking to remove or avoid harm, then we ought to be treating each other with a huge degree of regard and respect, if not love. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
There, I said it. Perhaps you are seething with anger right now, so for your own sake, take some deep breaths, count to ten, and exercise your smile muscles. You are alive, and breathing, and you can read!
How awesome is that?
Now, I sincerely want to thank you for reading this through to the end. If you did not read every word I wrote, please do us a favor for the greater good and do not bother posting any comments. Obviously, such an action would be like drawing a consensus from a survey based on only a piece of the data.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I will be the first to admit, that my opinions are obviously very biased to my side of the debate. (This is MY experience after all) But for me, it's still a very personal decision, based on what I have learned through studying package inserts and reading various articles, studies, and reports. If you are interested in further reading, here are some interesting tidbits, (besides what has been linked to above) that I have collected on this subject:
Here's another great article about why we should be allowed the choice.
Package insert for the Trepedia Vaccine. (Page 11 of this Vaccine is particularly interesting as it actually lists Autism as a possible adverse effect. That's from the manufacturer.)
Here is a little paradox. While this NBC news report claims that older children are more at risk for febrile seizures as a side effect from vaccine's, This site, which is where adverse effects are officially reported, states in the second paragraph down that babies are at greater risk for high fevers, seizures and SIDS. The last of which most concerns me. It also states that these things could be coincidence.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the only way to be sure they are would be to not have the vaccine, at least not in a child so young. Then if your baby did suddenly die of SIDS you could be sure that the vaccine had nothing to do with it. Otherwise, you would always wonder if you chose to allow an injection that had the side effect of killing your baby. The risks are there, you can decided which ones are worth taking.
The package inserts on every vaccine I have read, clearly state that the administrator of the vaccine needs to go over the possible risks of the vaccines and deliberating with the parents of a child before deciding if a child is eligible to receive a shot.
I don't know about you, but this is not what my pediatrician did when she injected my oldest child. The most she did was hand me a multi-page list of warnings (The package insert, perhaps?) that was overwhelming at best for any first time mom, and asked me if I wanted to read it. All the while giving the impression that her time was limited and I really ought to hurry this appointment along.
If that's not manipulation, I don't know what is.
All she needed to say was something to the effect of:
"If you choose this vaccine, your child could be one of thousands who experiences the following adverse effects:
Blindness, (7 reported last year, 2014)
Autism (46 in 2014)
Death (133 vaccine related deaths reported in 2014)
Of course these will only be blamed on the vaccine if they occur within a short amount of time.
By accepting the vaccine you also run the risk of Leukemia or other autoimmune diseases, though these side effects will take months to develop and are therefore not proven to be a result of the vaccine. Dyskinesia is another adverse effect. This one is a sign of autoimmune sensitivity and could mean your child will develop cancer or another disease later on. 123 cases of vaccine related Dyskinesia were reported in 2014."
In case you're curious about were I got the above numbers by spending a LOT of time looking through the 2014 VAERS report. You can follow the link and do your own research on the adverse effects that have been reported.
Thanks again and may you have a healthy day!