Skip to main content

Why the extreme positions on vaccines are preferred by many

People hate indecision.  They hate confusion. So the simplest way to deal with the vaccine issue is for people to accept one of two polarities.

One of the polarities says vaccines are safe and effective. You can take them without any fear whatsoever and expect them to protect you from whatever disease they are aimed at.

The other polarity says vaccines are unnecessary and best avoided. The reasons given for this may be many. It could be that the person feels in charge of their own health and sees no need for an intervention to protect against diseases they have no fear of.

Alternatively, a person may avoid vaccines because they think they are dangerous, ineffective, or both.

Both of these polarity positions make decision making around vaccines simple.

The people in group one, are happy to receive any recommended vaccine for themselves and their children as they believe them safe, while those in group 2 just avoid vaccines for themselves, and their children, if they feel strongly enough about it.

Those in group one have complete faith in the medical establishment and trust them to make the right decisions on their behalf with regard to vaccination while those in the second group see the medical establishment as corrupt and unworthy of placing one's trust in.

Both these positions suit time poor individuals who don't wish to look too closely into the value of each vaccine recommended to them.

In contrast to these two groups, there exists a third group who take a more moderate position on vaccines, believing they can be useful in preventing disease but that they also run the risk of complications.

Such people need to put more time and effort into researching each individual vaccine and seeing if it is a good fit for them or their child, depending on risk factors and perceived vaccine safety.

As few people wish to put time into vaccine research, most people opt for one of the two extremes, usually the government sanctioned one, as this is seen as making life easier that going against "the flow"- the will of the medical establishment.


Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.

That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!

If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."
The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.
Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.
The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.
What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.
Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.

The level pla…