Whenever we subject a healthy child to medical treatment, such as injecting them with heavy metals such as mercury or portions of infectious agents, we must closely consider the possible risks to the child.   There are real risks to vaccines, when we consider introducing foreign substances to the body, and the effects of deliberately intensively stimulating the immune systems of a developing child.

I find this statement interesting..."Public health officials worry that children who do not get all recommended and mandated vaccines pose a risk to those who get the full complement of shots. "    Public health officials don't have much faith in their vaccines, do they?   Are they seriously arguing that parents put their own children at risk in order to reduce risks to other children?   How successful do they expect that argument to be?  

I find it interesting that in both arguments, officials are arguing that unvaccinated children are a risk to others, rather than arguing about the benefits of the vaccines to the children themselves.   It is an interesting argument that we should subject our own children to a risk, in order to reduce risks to other children.

My own children are vaccinated.   However, reading this article, I start wondering why.  Do public health officials really believe that the greatest concern in vaccinating a child is in the interests of other children?   If so, then what I did was wrong.   My child should not be subjected to "altruistic" medical procedures until she is of age.  Meanwhile, only treatments that improve her own health should be administered to her.   She should have a choice about sacrificing her own health for the benefit of others.

The public dialog about vaccines seems to be dishonest.   Children can and do have severe adverse reactions to vaccines.  But, public officials and vaccine companies want to ruthlessly quell any debate over true health concerns related to vaccine, which definitely do exist and are an issue.   Therefore, there is a trust issue - parents know we are being railroaded, and not being told all of the true dangers.  

On the other side of the debate, people who wish to learn more about the risks of vaccines are stymied in getting real evidence due to the manner in which researchers are harassed and discredited if they find answers that public officials don't want anyone to hear about.  It's really scary what happens to a researcher who suggests that vaccines are not 100% safe, like watching an episode of The Bourne Identity.  The obvious, very public attempts at coverup are painful to watch, and raise very serious questions about whether the our government is being honest with people.

Parasites are very successful creatures.  Many parents are OK with emulating the success of the parasite in order to gain the benefits of vaccines while keeping their own children safe.  I don't think that argument is going to convince many people.