The controversy around vaccines is enough that once I have a child, I'm going to be reading up on every drug the hospital suggests should be put into him or her. While some depend on the government to properly approve and regulate these things, I'd rather depend on my own personal research when the time comes.
From the editorial:
The truth is that no one without a vested interest in the profitability of vaccines has studied all 36 of them in depth. There are more than 100 vaccines in development, and no tests for cumulative effect or vaccine interaction of all 36 vaccines in the current schedule have ever been done. If I'm mistaken, I challenge those who are making such grand pronouncements about vaccine safety to produce those studies.
If we are to believe that the ruling of the 'vaccine court' in these cases mean that all vaccines are safe, then we must also consider the rulings of that same court in the Hannah Polling and Bailey Banks cases, which ruled vaccines were the cause of autism and therefore assume that all vaccines are unsafe. Clearly both are irresponsible assumptions, and neither option is prudent.
In this growing crisis, we cannot afford to blindly trumpet the agenda of the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or vaccine makers. Now more than ever, we must resist the urge to close this book before it's been written. The anecdotal evidence of millions of parents who've seen their totally normal kids regress into sickness and mental isolation after a trip to the pediatrician's office must be seriously considered. The legitimate concern they and many in the scientific community have that environmental toxins, including those found in vaccines, may be causing autism and other disorders (Aspergers, ADD, ADHD), cannot be dissuaded by a show of sympathy and a friendly invitation to look for the 'real' cause of autism anywhere but within the lucrative vaccine program.
13 comments:
Yes, but Josh, while you are researching those vaccines, when will you have time to research the other products you will buy? And if you are working, when will you have time to become a scientist? Because we all know that science is a slow process that takes man people thinking together to progress.
See, Mom and Dad do an amazing job researching food, and if I cared enough, I could look to them, people I trust, for guidance.
You speak as if the government is the only entity that can ever "independently" research products.
I know, you have a hard gasping this concept.
Yes, the food itself, but not the farms where the food comes from. Nor is it easy to research any of the products we buy. Think about it.
Not many of the products we buy will directly affect our well being.
Those that do so negatively are usually discovered by third party consumer groups, not government regulators.
As well, please refer to my previous post, "The Successes of Regulation . . ."
Even if you believe in regulations, these recent failures, along with the controversy surrounding vaccines, are enough to prompt someone to perform their own research, and if you're going to do your own research anyway, and there are independent groups doing it anyway, why are we wasting our money on these ineffective regulatory agencies?
The more the merry when it comes to the products I use and their effect on me. Also, third party organizations also make mistakes..
And if I am not mistaken, so do businesses. So, your argument?
Businesses have are directly affected by their mistakes, independent consumer groups have a particular cause which they hold to and also have a direct stake in being legit.
Government is a monopoly and no matter how poorly they fail, they will still be there. If a business makes a mistake, I can stop buying their products. If a consumer group makes a mistake, I can stop reading their material, or purchasing their information. If the government makes a mistake, I have no recourse, its left in the hands of legislatures.
Businesses have are directly affected by their mistakes, independent consumer groups have a particular cause which they hold to and also have a direct stake in being legit, and governments are reelected by the people.
"governments are reelected by the people."
While I can choose who I vote for, I cannot choose how my elected officials wish to run a particular regulatory agency. If its not being run properly, I can vote someone else in office. If it continues to be run poorly, we can elect someone else.
Unfortunately, MPs are elected on MANY different issues that typically take precendent over the performance of a regulatory agency.The public's ability to rid itself of a ineffective agency if extremely difficult, unless there is EXTREME political pressure.
However if a car company can't build cars effectively, people will simply stop buying them, regardless of the level concern about that particular company. When the cars are no longer bought, the company goes out of business, and we are rid of an ineffective entity.
Surely you see the difference.
"While I can choose who I vote for, I cannot choose how my elected officials wish to run a particular regulatory agency. If its not being run properly, I can vote someone else in office. If it continues to be run poorly, we can elect someone else."
Indeed.
"Unfortunately, MPs are elected on MANY different issues that typically take precendent over the performance of a regulatory agency.The public's ability to rid itself of a ineffective agency if extremely difficult, unless there is EXTREME political pressure."
No, it is your responsibility as a voter to build an alternative political party that will sweep away the crappy agency's administration if elected. The problem, Josh, is that no one agrees with your ilk.
"However if a car company can't build cars effectively, people will simply stop buying them, regardless of the level concern about that particular company. When the cars are no longer bought, the company goes out of business, and we are rid of an ineffective entity."
I will agree that the market is a bit faster, but that still doesn't mean that your original assertion has been unrefuted.
"The problem, Josh, is that no one agrees with your ilk."
Yep, I'm an oppressed minority.
"I will agree that the market is a bit faster, but that still doesn't mean that your original assertion has been unrefuted."
The market is faster, more efficient, and more democratic.
"Yep, I'm an oppressed minority."
No, an idiot minority.
"The market is faster, more efficient, and more democratic."
Your point still hasn't been unrefuted.
I didn't realize my original point, that I will do my own research into the vaccines my child receives as it would be unwise to completely expect the government to properly determine the safety of such vaccines, had been refuted at all.
Post a Comment