I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.
Quote:
|
My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms.
|
Have a look at the number of people who died from diseases like tetanus and polio during pre-immunisation days before you make any claims about mild rises in disease resulting from populations who all of a sudden choose to stop immunising.
With regard to the possible chance of your child having serious side effects from immunisation, it's all a crock of shit if you even take your child in the car with you because I'm telling you now as a fact, that your child is more likely to suffer damaging side effects from a car accident than they are from immunisation.
We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.