The chart is obviously just an easy representation of my point. At this point we do need evidence. I mean what you're saying is the world would be better without vaccines, right? Can you honestly say that without a smile?
Sanitation and other factors has obviously improved lives but if you leave the US, for example, vaccines have effects RIGHT NOW. Not hundreds of years. just last year or so people were dying from diseases that are viral and cannot be fixed by things like lifestyle.
Go to Africa and tell those people who were dying, and now are not dying, that their vaccines are not to be trusted and they should go the natural route.
You may look at America and say we don't need it because of our advanced lifestyle, but you can't put evidence to that, you can only assume.
Old people die in masses with the flu virus every year, UNTIL a new vaccine for the current strain is manufactured and lo and behold, lives are saved.
There is plenty of information publicly available and it's not all the government. You think independent individuals and organisations haven't looked into these things, and only the government has a hold of the simple technology required to check the components of a vaccine, replicate and test it?
Of course not. We can all, if we can be bothered, test for ourselves. It's all out there in public databases. If we can't trust that, who or what can we trust? The mother with motherly instinct but no formal educational background?
Why?
Because it's nice and it makes us feel safe?
What about that child with auto-immune disease in school that contracts a deadly virus because 5% of the students were denied vaccines as a kid. They contracted a disease that made them a little sick, meanwhile that auto-immune disease child is dead.
the difficult decision you speak of should only be 'how much time should I spend trying to understand the science?'
Sure, if there's a brand new vaccine that's been rushed and put out into the community you might wanna be skeptical, but that only happens during huge epidemic crises. Otherwise, years, decades go into the research and testing of vaccines before it hits the shelves.
I think it's a tragic life if we can't put some trust in the very things that are allowing us to propagate and live longer than ever before. And when I say trust, I don't mean blind trust. I mean 'if I had time in my busy day to check, I will, but otherwise, scientific consensus is enough'
Thank you for the stimulating conversation. The relationship between naturally acquired disease, recovery and future health is never discussed clearly. Instead of giving Africans vaccines, why don't we give them control of their resources and allow them to provide proper sanitation and nutrition to their people?
Can I check, you believe it is ethical to medically intervene in the life of a healthy child with a procedure that has potentially grave risks for the sake of another child?
What if the first child gets brain damaged by the vaccine and the second child catches a different pathogen and dies anyway? Is that moral?
At best, science presents working assumptions based on repeated observations. At worst it is use as propaganda in order to manipulate and control people.....often to very great harm. Trust is the only thing that matters. If you didn't trust the engineer who built a plane, you wouldn't fly in it, it's that simple.
If the idea of a vaccine is to improve health, lets look at what it means to be healthy, define that (and not just in the short term.) If we need to sensitise the immune system in some way for certain diseases, let's make better vaccines.....ones that aren't a russian roulette or chronic disabler for a proportion of the population. Let's not start with the position that it's ok to take risks with the life of a child for the sake of another.