Snipped for focus.
No one ever died from "not" taking Vioxx, HRT, oxycontin, or Avandia. And no "bystanders" around the people who DIDN'T take Vioxx, HRT, oxycontin, and Avandia ever got sick or died.
Vaccines simply cannot be compared to Vioxx, oxycontin, HRT, or Avandia. I wouldn't even call them an airbag, as someone did upthread, because that implies that they are an antidote. Vaccines, especially MMR, absolutely
prevent disease. It's not a theory or a conspiracy, or a get rich quick scheme.
Communicable diseases aren't just some scary bedtime story from the olden days, that doesn't affect modern, educated, "Starbucks carrying", God-fearing activists in rich nations." Diseases don't care if you drink Starbucks in a rich nation, or pray on your knees in the squalor of a third world nation. If the person is susceptible, the disease infects and sickens, and spreads itself.
I personally believe that anyone in a rich nation like the U.S. who does not immunize themselves or their children is profoundly irresponsible and negligent, and I won't apologize for that. Epidemiologists won't, either. They are frustrated and alarmed at what is going on with "anti-vaxers", who are
single handedly reversing more than 50 years of progress in the area of measles eradication-- in only 10-15 years. THAT's what is important to every person on earth.
And again, if we confine the conversation only to the MMR vaccine, with over 50 YEARS of safety and 99%+ effectiveness, there is simply
no valid medical reason for healthy people to refuse vaccination for themselves or their children. And the rest is simply ignorant paranoia, or magical thinking and supersition, IMO. It is no different than my earlier comparison about virgin cleansing.
No one here has responded to my earlier question. What do people think about practicing medical professionals refusing to vaccinate themselves or their children? Is that their "right"? How about police and firefighters? The military? Politicians?
Should we insist that
these public servants immunize themselves and their families, so as not to spread disease to sick people and immunologically vulnerable people? While upholding the "rights" of others to spread disease and put themselves and others at risk?
Should we stop requiring sick people with communicable diseases and exposures to be quarantined, because we are infringing on their "rights" to move freely in society?
Should we stop tracking down sex partners of people diagnosed with STDs, because the infected carrier has "rights" to privacy and "rights" to have sex with and infect whomever they wish?
Why is it "okay" to pretend to tolerate the irresponsible and negligent decisions of "anti-vaxers", when we don't tolerate the above situations? Just imagine for a minute a handful of unvaccinated health care workers and a measles outbreak. Is there ANYONE who thinks that is perfectly okay, or that that health care worker has a "right" to refuse vaccination and spread disease to their patients? We're not talking about something like refusing vioxx, HRT, or birth control medications. We're talking about
intentionally encouraging widespread communicable disease, and pretending that it's some kind of politically correct conversation. It's foolish and ignorant.
I have personally seen widespread outbreaks of communicable diseases in third world countries. I have seen people in developing nations walk days, and dozens of miles, to line up outside clinics to get immunizations for themselves and their kids. If these people knew that there are people in "rich nations" INTENTIONALLY refusing vaccines and spreading previously eradicated diseases because of some ridiculous and misguided ideas about religion and "rights", they'd be horrified to the core of their souls, and on their knees in the dirt praying to God that these people would change their minds and stop the spread of disease on earth. As we all should be, IMO.
All this "political correctness" is going to continue to sicken and even kill some people, and create lifelong complications for others, like mental disability, deafness, etc.
IMO, a person's "rights" stop being "rights" when the exercise of those rights harm, or have the potential to kill, vulnerable other people. That's when that "right" becomes profoundly socially irresponsible, IMO.
I'm going to post this again, in case any missed it above.
http://www.academia.edu/2344148/Fre...vaccinators_be_penalized_for_the_harm_they_do