Frankly, it is just such efforts to shush shush any doubt at all that throws gasoline on the fires of doubters such as myself. Your desire to achieve the percentage of vaccination required for "herd immunity" at all costs, including freedom of discourse is not helpful to your own cause. It isn't just you - the real fear I have are the doctors who implement all of this. They, along with the CDC and state health agencies want us all to "shut up" also.
If they could be trusted to defer from vaccinating those with potential immunity issues, that would be great. But in the rush to crush the "nutty fringe" they would rather err on the side of vaccinating everyone they can. When something does go wrong, they do not admit error - how can they in today's rush to sue? Nor will their pride allow them to admit error anyway. Arrogance in this field may not be a conspiracy, but the resulting pain and anguish is the same.
I have seen a family destroyed by social services, when their children were taken from them, falsely accused of trying to harm their children. Why, because a 3 month old child had seizures within 24 hours of a vaccination. There was plenty of family history to suggest caution, but the pediatrician brushed it aside. In addition the child was experiencing a cold at the time; again the doctor brushed aside the concerns of the mother and assured her that it was the right thing to do. When the child began the seizures (my wife was in the home of our friend at the time) they rushed the child to the hospital, and immediately they were sent on to the major Boston hospital. The seizures continued for several days before they were brought under control; the result was permanent brain damage. However, a neurologist at this Boston hospital could not explain the cause of the seizures, since in her mind vaccinations are safe and as I see it, her arrogance reigned supreme. She filed a complaint with Social Services and the child and siblings were removed from the parents. She couldn't see the link. She couldn't even have the humility to say "I don't know why this child had seizures." It was better to close ranks with the pediatrician. She "assumed" the parents were either willful or negligent. In my view, the pediatrician was negligent.
Once Social Services are involved, the family is assumed guilty until proven innocent. This is how the process works. Even if you could gather medical expert testimony, it is cost prohibitive for most families and the system works against the accused. The children were separated from the parents for several years. They were forced to give up the brain injured daughter to adoption in exchange for the return of the other older sibling.... and they had to agree to say nothing about the "deal" to the press. It was a nightmare. Of course the reality is that the CDC definition of at risk people is very narrow, that very few doctors would be brave enough to contradict their eminent leaders about the risk of vaccination to certain groups.
You may not want to use the word conspiracy and I also think it is unwarranted if it should mean that it is somehow orchestrated. Rather it is the result of pressure to reach the herd immunity goal that creates the various state guidelines that generally conform to CDC guidelines. The pediatric associations and other professional groups respond like you -- they want to disregard even the warnings on the vaccine labels in their effort to avoid looking like a wuss. They want to discredit and silence those who express concern, just as you have expressed.
The issue of protecting those with immunity problems is far more complex than limiting the concern to those with HIV and one or two other conditions. If the guidelines took that into consideration and if doctors were encouraged to exercise care and good judgement, there would be a greater sense of trust, instead of distrust and suspicion.
I am not against all vaccinations. But I don't think we need a vaccination for every disease out there. And most certainly we need to encourage doctors to use judgement in exempting
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, it is just such efforts to shush shush any doubt at all that throws gasoline on the fires of doubters such as myself. Your desire to achieve the percentage of vaccination required for "herd immunity" at all costs, including freedom of discourse is not helpful to your own cause. It isn't just you - the real fear I have are the doctors who implement all of this. They, along with the CDC and state health agencies want us all to "shut up" also. If they could be trusted to defer from vaccinating those with potential immunity issues, that would be great. But in the rush to crush the "nutty fringe" they would rather err on the side of vaccinating everyone they can. When something does go wrong, they do not admit error - how can they in today's rush to sue? Nor will their pride allow them to admit error anyway. Arrogance in this field may not be a conspiracy, but the resulting pain and anguish is the same. I have seen a family destroyed by social services, when their children were taken from them, falsely accused of trying to harm their children. Why, because a 3 month old child had seizures within 24 hours of a vaccination. There was plenty of family history to suggest caution, but the pediatrician brushed it aside. In addition the child was experiencing a cold at the time; again the doctor brushed aside the concerns of the mother and assured her that it was the right thing to do. When the child began the seizures (my wife was in the home of our friend at the time) they rushed the child to the hospital, and immediately they were sent on to the major Boston hospital. The seizures continued for several days before they were brought under control; the result was permanent brain damage. However, a neurologist at this Boston hospital could not explain the cause of the seizures, since in her mind vaccinations are safe and as I see it, her arrogance reigned supreme. She filed a complaint with Social Services and the child and siblings were removed from the parents. She couldn't see the link. She couldn't even have the humility to say "I don't know why this child had seizures." It was better to close ranks with the pediatrician. She "assumed" the parents were either willful or negligent. In my view, the pediatrician was negligent. Once Social Services are involved, the family is assumed guilty until proven innocent. This is how the process works. Even if you could gather medical expert testimony, it is cost prohibitive for most families and the system works against the accused. The children were separated from the parents for several years. They were forced to give up the brain injured daughter to adoption in exchange for the return of the other older sibling.... and they had to agree to say nothing about the "deal" to the press. It was a nightmare. Of course the reality is that the CDC definition of at risk people is very narrow, that very few doctors would be brave enough to contradict their eminent leaders about the risk of vaccination to certain groups. You may not want to use the word conspiracy and I also think it is unwarranted if it should mean that it is somehow orchestrated. Rather it is the result of pressure to reach the herd immunity goal that creates the various state guidelines that generally conform to CDC guidelines. The pediatric associations and other professional groups respond like you -- they want to disregard even the warnings on the vaccine labels in their effort to avoid looking like a wuss. They want to discredit and silence those who express concern, just as you have expressed. The issue of protecting those with immunity problems is far more complex than limiting the concern to those with HIV and one or two other conditions. If the guidelines took that into consideration and if doctors were encouraged to exercise care and good judgement, there would be a greater sense of trust, instead of distrust and suspicion. I am not against all vaccinations. But I don't think we need a vaccination for every disease out there. And most certainly we need to encourage doctors to use judgement in exempting