 |
||
What do vaccinations have to do with politics? |
||
| July 3, 2007
|
||
|
According to an April 2007 press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Every day, 11,000 babies are born in the United States who will need to be immunized against 14 diseases before age two. Despite recent gains in infant immunization coverage, more than 20 percent of the nation's two-year-olds are still not fully immunized against infectious diseases to which they are especially vulnerable." To clarify, infants and toddlers are not "especially vulnerable" because these diseases are prevalent, but because the very young, the very old, and the immunocompromised (i.e., those who are already weakened by disease) are more likely to contract any contagious disease to which they are exposed. However, the reason that diseases such as measles, mumps, and polio -- among many others -- are no longer prevalent is that vaccines were developed and are included in a standard schedule of immunizations given to infants and toddlers in the United States and other Western nations. A CDC article titled "What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations" included the following facts:
These once common diseases are now rarely seen, thanks to the standard immunization schedule which results in a phenomenon known as "herd immunity." Per a National Institutes of Health (NIH) publication titled "Understanding Vaccines", "if a critical number of people in a community are vaccinated against a particular illness, the entire group becomes less likely to get the disease." This herd immunity is what protects those children who have not been vaccinated. But more parents are opting not to vaccinate their children, citing moral objections and disagreement with the supposed public health risks of abstaining. In fact, they maintain that it is riskier to vaccinate than not to, implicating vaccine ingredients such as thimerosal and mercury in asthma and other childhood diseases. While it seems that abstinence from vaccinations would be a personal decision on the part of parents, definite public health implications exist. Again, from the NIH: "If enough people in a community forego vaccinations, diseases can reappear. In 1974, the Japanese government stopped vaccinating against pertussis because of public concern about the vaccine's safety and because no one had died from the disease the previous year. Five years later, a pertussis epidemic in Japan sickened 13,000 people and killed 41." Perhaps more convincing than the statistics cited above is the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy for 2006-2015, as set forth by the World Health Organization. "Its chief goal is to, by 2015 or earlier, reduce illness and death due to vaccine-preventable diseases by at least two thirds compared to 2000 levels." While other public health factors such as sanitation play a more significant role in disease control and prevention in non-Western nations than in Western nations, the worldwide impact of vaccines is undeniable. When your pediatrician advises you to follow the standard immunization schedule, that guidance is not the opinion of a single doctor. It's not a third-hand inconclusive personal anecdote. It's not an unsubstantiated quote from a parenting website. It's the collective conclusion of thousands of doctors and medical researchers from around the world who are dedicated to caring for people and saving lives. And you can choose -- for whatever reason (and many people have many good reasons) -- not to follow the advice of your pediatrician. But it's a fact that most of us who do adhere to the immunization schedule is what affords those who don't that herd immunity, that relative safety from these once-common diseases. Stay even more informed about politics and parenting issues by visiting our Parental is Political resources. |
||
| ||
2 Responses to "What do vaccinations have to do with politics?"Leave a comment: | ||
| ||
| ||
IMPERFECTION IN YOUR INBOX
 | ||
 | ||
| ||
POPULAR RIGHT NOW
Coffee or Tea, Which One is for Me? When I registered as an Independent, I did so because... read more » The Ides and Crooked Teeth of March According to the old saying, the month of March usually... read more » Why I'm tired of the GOP There's no doubt (except perhaps among loyal listeners... read more » |
About The Imperfect Parent | Submission Guidelines | Press | Contact Us | Advertise on The Imperfect Parent | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
All original content © 2002 - 2010 The Imperfect Parent™ and Tiny Tantrums Media. The Imperfect Parent and Mominatrix are trademarks of Prudentia Communications Group.
The views, opinions and information expressed in articles and blog posts published on imperfectparent.com and all subdomains are those of the authors alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of The Imperfect Parent or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of any entity of, or affiliated with, The Imperfect Parent and Prudentia Communications Group. The Imperfect Parent is designed for entertainment purposes only and is not meant to be a substitute for medical, health, legal, or financial advice from a professional.
Reproduction of material from any of The Imperfect Parent's pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. The Imperfect Parent and Tiny Tantrums are trademarks of Prudentia Communications Group.
1. nhokkanen
Jul 04, 2007 16:39
Questioning vaccines is not synonymous with being anti-vaccine. Vaccine injury happens more frequently than industry and the CDC would like the public to know, as many soldiers can attest ("Vaccine A" by Gary Matsumoto), and VAERS only reports about 10%. Even so, more than $750,000,000 has been paid out by the contentious NVICP.Conflicts of interest are rife in the vaccine schedule decision-making process; look at ACIP and the NIP. Lazy media regurgigating press releases and CDC web inaccuracies encourage consumers to passively take their shots without investigating whether the ingredients may have unintended negative effects.
Toxicologists, chemists and occupational physicians have a much more critical concern over injecting ethylmercury into infants than do immunologists paid to promote vaccination. Yet the media continues to promote the "parents vs. scientists" notion. In many cases, the parents ARE the scientists, doctors, nurses, legislators etc. who have vaccine-injured children and altruistically want to prevent it from happening to others.
Unfortunately disease scaremongerers have ensured that industry is protected from liability for faulty products, and honest consumers reporting problems with vaccines are suffering as a result.
2. Momo
Apr 25, 2009 19:20
I must insist that every adult also have their antibodies tested to see if they are still immune (or ever were) after receiving vaccinations. Vaccination does not equal immunization (which the manufacturers clearly state if you read their lengthy inserts. They do not guarantee immunity.) Adults walking around today may be completely vulnerable to any disease and don't even know it. They could be passing diseases on, too. To think that once you have been vaccinated you're home free for the rest of your life is not responsible. Some vaccines have to be given again and again because they wear off. The focus seems to be on parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, but how many billion people out there are not immune simply because they don't realize their vaccines either never took or wore off?A pediatrician from Egypt told me himself that he had to be re-vaccinated after his first set of shots because he didn't have the antibodies. It makes you wonder, eh?