CaseyThis may be the best thing to ever happen. The far left and far right refuse to vaccinate, leaving only the sane middle to live on in the case of a catastrophic epidemic.
Not all the sane middle would live on though, because vaccines aren't 100% effective. The point of vaccines is to generate herd immunity, not to secure individuals. The exception here is travel vaccines, for example Hep A and B, typhoid, Japanese Encephalitis, rabies. All these vaccines are actually very effective, which is why if you have them you are safer going to a 3rd world hospital. I'll elaborate on the rabies vaccine a little - this doesn't actually give you immunity to rabies, it only extends the period in which you must get help a bit. I can't remember the precise time, but you still don't have long even if your vaccinated. When I went to Nepal there were places I went where, if you were bitten, you wouldn't be able to reach a helipad to be evacuated and reach the hospital in time without the vaccine, so it's kinda important.
goat00If your point was not everything you read is trustworthy, i think were on the same page (just maybe different sides of it.) this thread kind of dovetails into the "should the government mandate vaccines?" topic, to which the answer is FUCK no. as vaxtruth can for sure be crazy biased, heres a study correlating infant death mortality rates to numbers of vaccs given (from all over the world) interesting, but as some sharp nser is bound to point out, correlation is not causation. still, interesting http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
i personally dont vaccinate (or havent since 2007.) i get sniffles, and was bed ridden once 2 winters ago for 3 days. i TRY to eat well and keep my immune system humming naturally, which it seems to do pretty well most of the time. BUT, if i had a kid, my tune might very well change. the percentage is small that adverse reactions will occour, but theres still a percentage. as a parent with a newfouund love for a child (people say its the craziest emotion you can feel), I may accept the risk. but id for fuckin sure be doing more in-depth research on it than i have.
What vaccines have you, I'm assuming a grown man, been able to get in the last 7/8 years? Of course there's Flu, a fairly ineffective vaccine compared to the others, that is only really given to asthmatics, pensioners, other groups at risk of pneumonia. Other than that, there really aren't any others unless you're travelling. You'd be retarded not to get the recommended vaccines before you go travelling, but natural selection so do as you please (actually they're kinda expensive...).
Ok, should the government mandate vaccines?
Basically, another freedom vs sensibility argument.
Should you be allowed to smoke cigarettes, even though overwhelming scientific consensus is you're seriously harming yourself? Yeah, it's your choice, #freedom.
Should you smoke in a public place, even though your second hand smoke poses significant risk to non-smokers? No, because your choice has potential to negatively affect others.
Should you be allowed to modify a car, either visually or performance wise? Yes.
Should you be allowed to remove the brakes from your car, even though this means you won't be able to stop when someone walks out in front of you? Definitely not, because your choice has potential to negatively affect others.
Should you be allowed to refuse to take a certain medication based on it's side affects? Yes, for example I never take aspirin because of its side effects.
Should you be allowed to refuse to vaccinate your child, compromising herd immunity, allowing diseases to reappear, endangering those who cannot have vaccines for real medical reasons, and potentially endangering some of those who are vaccinated (no vaccine is 100% effective)? Absolutely not, because your choice has potential to negatively affect others.
So you've probably got my message. I'm ok with you having your freedoms when your matters concern you alone, but when your decisions are negatively impacting others then that is when governments need to step in and enforce you don't.
Also, if you look all at the statistics (not just one paper), there is absolutely no denying that vaccines are effective and the benefits far outweigh the risk. If you can't be bothered to read loads of papers (no-one can), then look at meta-analyses. These are when the results of many studies are collated, allowing us to see a bigger picture. For example,
here is a meta-analysis on the efficacy of the flu vaccine, published in the Lancet. The Lancet is one of the most respected of all medical journals. Tl:dr, the paper shows the efficacy of the flu vaccine to be roughly 70%, not a great number by any means. It is widely acknowledged that the flu vaccine is fairly ineffective, which is why it is only recommended for those at risk of complications such as pneumonia.
