Well, I can't say I'm exactly ANTI-vaccination for *every* vaccine every time, but I can sure tell you that I don't buy every stupid thing the people who manufacture the stuff are going around saying, either. I had every conceivable vaccine available while I was growing up, and probably a few more you never heard of because I travelled to Australia for a couple years with my family when I was nine. It didn't stop me from contracting measles and being placed under quarantine while in college.
One physician told me that what I had been through was "statistically insignificant." I wonder if parents ever hear, "Oh, sorry your son died from that vaccine, but such things are statistically insignificant. Autism? That's probably statistically insignificant, too." Nothing like trivializing someone's personal experience to buy you some scientific credibility.
It just gets me mad. The link above is to an article about how the effects of a vaccine seem to be still "working" in people 30 years later. Of course, this is a LAB test and no-one was actually exposed to smallpox I wouldn't imagine. I'm a bit confused. How can it still be producing immunity in your body years and years later? AND at the same time, how can it be that I got all my shots but still got measles? Those two things do not seem to go together.
No doubt there is some complicated mathmatical formula for it that I'm too dumb to understand. Dopey people like me would like labels like, "WORKS" or "DOESN'T WORK" on our vaccines. Or even "WORKS SOMETIMES" would be more clear than what I am getting in the media.
I think there should be *reasonable* warning labels on the vaccines that parents have to sign as well. Like, "This vaccine should protect your child against the icky-blech under most laboratory circumstances. It's 89 percent effective in clinical trials. Of course, you also have a .5% risk of death and a 2% risk of severe rash if you take this vaccine. It will be free to you under your insurance, but because everyone is getting this vaccine, expect to pay higher premiums because it costs $750 a shot. Oh, and suburbanites like you really only have a .01 percent chance of contracting the disease in the first place if you don't travel overseas or hang out in soup kitchens."
I know the scientists who feel the world would be taken over by (name of disease of the week) if everyone didn't get vaccinated don't like for parents to question the safety of the vaccines. But they ARE asking questions. It's a given now. Get used to it. Make some safer vaccines WITHOUT THE USE of aborted fetal-cell lines if you want parents like me to sign up for shots. And no fair using monkey cells and the like either... we want pleasant-sounding ingredients like "aloe leaf" or "blueberries." And they have to work.
If the manufacturers were more open about the making of the vaccines and the risks people take when they get them, I think parents would feel better about the whole process of getting their children vaccinated. I know that I felt better about giving my child the Hepatitis B vaccine when our family doctor didn't push the issue, but made sure to find out if the vaccine he had in his office were thimerosol free. (I felt slightly better about giving it than not, though I'm not 100% happy about giving it AT ALL if that makes sense.) I feel I can trust him more when he doesn't fight me on things like the chickenpox vaccine or rubella.
When I go to the doctor's office, I'd like REAL information about how likely it is that we'll come into contact with pertussis as opposed to the risks of the vaccine. I don't want to hear about how deadly pertussis ITSELF is as opposed to the "small risk" of the vaccine. And I could care less about herd immunity because I don't want MY child to die or suffer an "adverse reaction" to a shot for something he isn't likely to contract. If it's not a prevalent disease, you can take your chances just like my child if you can't get the shot.
Type in "aborted fetal cell lines" and see what happens. Bless you all!