by jgnat 4 Replies latest social family
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855638
For over 100 years, infant mortality has steadily declined. We now take it for granted that all our chidren will grow in to healthy, active adults. In my opinion, parents now focus their attention to less immediate threats (i.e. immunizations) and in doing so, may unintentionally expose their children to ancient threats.
Can we afford to ignore the lessons of the past?
Thanks for that. Terrible experience for the kid and family, but a valuable lesson.
A lot of medical procedures involve risk analysis, immunizations are a good example. (I think flouride is a good example but that's the subject of another thread). I don't know the exact numbers but lets say that there is a tetanus shots create a complication in one in a million cases, and 1/10of those are serious. If you immunize a billion people you're going to see a thousand problems, a hundred of which are serious. So yes you can point to a bunch of people that got sick from the shot. But if one out of ten thousand people are going to get tetanus without the shot then 100,000 are going to get sick. Simple math which too many don't think about.
In the Netherlands there is a part that is called "the bible belt" and there are a lot of children now getting the mazles and other deceases which had not been seen in such a large scale since decades. It even hit the news. Because of their believesystem a lot of people to not immunitize their kids because they say that if they do they do not trust God. As a result not only children but elder people get ill (and much worse then the kids).
I never hear that complaint of them when they are hit by a truck and need immediate care... then faith in God is not required. It is all so hypocritacal.
There is, by the way, one situation I do not like kids to be immunitized. That situation was also in the Netherlands where they imminutize 14-16 year olds for uterine cancer... it is a fairly new immunitizing medicine and they do not fully know yet what the conscequenses are. Some kids actually died because they got immunitized so in SOME situations it may be wise to reconscider. In MOST cases however it is plainly stupid NOT to immunitize.
JeffT, it's the failure to grasp the basic math that drives me a little nuts. There is a huge benefit to undertake mass immunizations.
DeWandelaar, we have a bible belt here in Canada, too. Some of my acquaintances accidentally "liked" my link to the article above, before they noticed that it was PRO immunization.
I'd heard of a measles outbreak in the UK, too. http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Breaking-news-Risk-measles-outbreak-Glastonbury/story-19614795-detail/story.html#axzz2bISLRfJq
"Measles can be dangerous, especially for babies and young children. In the United States in 2011, 38% of children younger than 5 years old who had measles had to be treated in the hospital. For some children, measles can lead to pneumonia, a serious lung infection. It can also cause lifelong brain damage, deafness, and even death. One to three out of 1,000 children in the U.S. who get measles will die from the disease, even with the best care. About 150,000 to 175,000 people die from measles each year around the world—mostly in places where children do not get the measles vaccine." - CDC
The immunization for young girls, you are talking about, is for the HPV vaccine. This virus is very common, and by the time a woman is 50, she has a 90% chance of having had the virus. The HPV vaccine, besides providing protection against the virus, prevents some cancers as you mention.
What gets me is the virulent opposition to vaccines from the natural crowd. I mean, what is more natural than injecting a weakened version of the same virus, and priming our own immune system to guard against it? I think the fear stems from it being an injection (white lab coats and all), and that to be effective, everyone has to buy in. It's a government-sponsored activity, and therefore "dangerous".
