Why Is Immunization so Controversial?
For some reason that I have never quite fathomed, immunization against infectious diseases has from its very inception in Jenner’s time been one of the most viscerally feared and bitterly opposed of all medical techniques. Perhaps people felt that to immunize was to interfere sacrilegiously with the course of nature, and that people, especially children, had the duty to die of infectious diseases just as Nature “intended.” Perhaps they felt that, if it worked, it would allow the survival of the unfittest. At any rate, few medical procedures have been as persistently, minutely, and fervently examined for harmful effects as immunization has.
In general, the results have been disappointing for those who wished to show that immunization was invariably followed by Nature’s retribution, particularly in the neurological sphere. Scare has succeeded scare without ever being confirmed, though those who hold to the anti-immunization faith refuse to abandon it. Now, at last, there seems to be evidence of a genuine association between a certain type of immunization and a neurological condition.
That association is that between the immunization of children with an anti-influenza virus and narcolepsy, a condition characterized by chronic, excessive daytime sleepiness and a tendency to cataplexy, that is to say a loss of muscular tone triggered by strong emotion. It was first observed in Finland and Sweden; subsequent studies in other European countries and in Canada failed to find an association, but a further study, this time in England, and reported in the British Medical Journal, confirmed that the Finnish and Swedish findings.
In October 2009, children at risk of pulmonary complications during a pandemic of influenza were immunized against it with a vaccine against the causative virus. Most of the children immunized suffered from asthma (interestingly, one of the theories to account for the recent rise in the proportion of children suffering from asthma and other allergic conditions is that, having been immunized against all the common childhood infectious diseases, their immune systems have not developed as Nature “intended”).







The thing is, for things like measles and polio, we have a historical record of a public school system with epidemics. Yes, inoculating all children for measles may kill 80 children annually across the country. However, we know as a matter of historical record, that every 10 years or so a small town could expect that kind of death toll from epidemics.
For such viruses, mandatory vaccination with a reliable vaccine is a slam dunk.
But that doesn't mean only a kook would question whether every vaccine is necessary or even justifiable. You're causing illness. Maybe that happens frequently enough that you're better off risking the actual virus.
IT's not ok to kill and or/destroy the quality of life of a certain number of kids with vaccines in order to theoretically save another certain number of them from diseases that were already in radical decline before the vaccines came out.
And you can tell people all you want, until you're blue in the face, that millions get these shots without incident and that many have been spared horrible diseases and much suffering because they're had them, but you can't actually point to any because that's the point of the vaccination - there aren't supposed to be any victims!
BUT, every anti-vaccine scare monger can immeditately and quickly point to any one a of the few who have had, or allegedly had (because some negative reactions can't be conclusively proven to be from the vaccine, itself) bad reactions from the shots. Those are glaringly, frighteningly obvious and hard to ignore, so they seem very immediate, very real and more of an issue than any intangible benefits vaccines offer.
It's hard to get people to walk through old graveyards and really look at all the tiny gravestones.
Our story and others like them -- and there are many such personal stories told among those who have lost children or the health of their children following vaccination -- are said to be "merely anecdotal and unreliable" by doctors, most especially AMA doctors and the immunization specialists at the CDC (I have spoken with them during the early unfolding weeks of our daughter's years-long tragic tale); although they know that were a manifest to travel with each shipment of vaccine from production facility to point of administration, when they could know whether such things as the break down of a tractor trailer or local delivery van refrigeration unit had occurred during transshipment of vaccine -- but historically it is the AMA that has been in the forefront of lobbying AGAINST such a menchanism -- the very mechanism that would eradicate the need to rely upon "merely anecdotal and unreliable" family reiterations because the authorized personnel would have actual paper records for each such shipment. Things happen to vaccines in shipment. CDC and others -- such as the doctors and nurses to administer vaccinations -- should know what happened to any shipment from which they are administering, and should be required by law to make a record notation of the shipment, lot, and batch from which each such administration has come, including to provide parents with a formal written copy of each such vaccination.
Until those things occur, I hold out very little hope that our fellow citizens should be expected to place their full trust in either the national immunizations program or the saccharine words of the AMA, the CDC, their local physicians or the new media that grounds its stories based on the press releases put out by the men and women who represent those interest groups for clearly the interests they represent are not those of the children or others to whom immunizations are administered.
As I noted below, I was familiar with a DPT vaccine lawsuit in the 1980's.
Include the FDA in indicting groups with vested interests making decisions about which treatments/drugs make it into the food chain. So many of their approved drugs have had to be withdrawn after they got out into broad administration in the general population.
Did you know that according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, only a few percent of polio cases even progress to paralysis, and that paralysis is treatable? And that we still have infantile paralysis today that some say is just polio in another form? So who says polio was eradicated, or that the vaccine did it, when again, it was already declining before the vaccine was widespread.
And maybe there has been some other nefarious distribution of smallpox virus.
Last week I read that the US government is stockpiling smallpox vaccine for this "eradicated" disease.
"...interestingly, one of the theories to account for the recent rise in the proportion of children suffering from asthma and other allergic conditions is that, having been immunized against all the common childhood infectious diseases, their immune systems have not developed as Nature “intended”)."
I think there's some validity to that. And that hyper cleanliness isn't all it's cracked up to be, like using anti-bacterial soap on the skin destroys too many (good) bacteria. (Antibiotics kill some of the welcome and helpful bacteria in the intestine.)
In the 80's, I was briefly associated with a law firm that was handling a case of one manufacturer's DPT vaccine. It was the P part, pertussis, that was allegedly tied to brain damage in infants.
Have been a little vaccine wary myself ever since and think we're way over-immunizing now.
Interesting, given all the hype that old people must get flu shots.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282543/Flu-vaccine-protected-barely-HALF-Americans-got--percent-seniors.html
My 90 year old father-in-law is terminally ill, and he got the flu shot this year. He caught the violent stomach flu going around anyway. It was awful. Wish there was something we could done for him to prevent the additional suffering.
We saw this with the phony swine flu scare. THey stopped testing anyone to see what they had actually come down with, and just put everyone down as having swine flu if the clinical symptoms were similar.
Sorry about your dad. But even if the flu shot worked perfectly, it wouldn't have prevented a stomach bug.
When most of a population is vaccinated against a disease, the germs can't find enough hosts to keep spreading, even to those in the population who have not been vaccinated.
That's important with vaccines that only provide partial immunity. The flu shot is only about 60% effective against preventing flu in any one person. But give it to a whole population and you can stop the epidemic in its tracks, so no one has to worry about the flu.