Vaccinations – An Argument I Don’t Get

To Vaccinate or not to Vaccinate:

I was never a great debater in school and was never in a position to debate much in college.  It is difficult to debate topics that are based on physical laws.  So pardon my ignorance if I have to question what I consider “faulty logic” when the debate about vaccinations comes up.

There are a lot of people that believe whole-heartedly in vaccines and their benefits.  I used to, until the arguments supporting their use started me to question their value.  I tend to judge the validity of a product based on whether the arguments for them are good or not.

Such is the case with vaccines.

Who Requires Vaccines?

The word out there is that all people (especially children) need to be vaccinated.  There are vaccines against polio, smallpox, rubella, mumps, measles, shingles, whooping cough, HPV, flu, . . . . . and the list goes on and on.

Pre-school children and elementary school children have mandatory vaccination requirements in California for several childhood diseases and other “threats” to their health and welfare.  There are no opt-outs for personal, moral or religious reasons.  Get vaccinated or you don’t go to school is the mandate of the State.  At least this pertains to public school – I am not sure if home-schooling or alternative schooling (private) has been included, but I’m sure this has at least been tried if not successfully.

The supporters of vaccinations tell us how effective these vaccines are in the prevention of all diseases for which they were intended.  Keep this one in mind as you read on.

A Valid Argument?

Here is the real “kicker” in my world.  The argument from the bureaucrats for making sure that all children are vaccinated goes something like this:

“Children that are not vaccinated are putting our vaccinated children at risk!”

Wait a minute.  I thought they just finished telling us how effective they were in warding off diseases.  If that is so, how can a child that is not vaccinated put one that is – at risk?  Wouldn’t the vaccinated child be protected from anything that the unprotected child could bring into their arena?

Makes you wonder just how effective these vaccines really are, doesn’t it.










Recommended Vaccination Schedule – Newborn to 15 mos – Source 

This chart is difficult to read in this format, but you can get a clear rendition of this along with other interesting information at the following site:

The Media and Vaccination:

There are many commercials on television, the radio, magazines and all other media about the new miracle drugs and vaccines available to us today.  One such promotion that comes to mind shows a retired football player and current sports show commentator convincing people to get the shingles vaccination.  There are a few graphic shots of the rash created by the shingles virus and they are sure to tell you that if you had the chickenpox as a child, the shingles virus is inside you, ready to pounce and make your life miserable for days and weeks.  But take this vaccine and you need not worry.

Why the Lawsuits?

Hmm.  Interesting.  We were told how effective these vaccines were and now there are law firms with class-action suits against this same shingles vaccine advertising across the country.  The ad says that if you contracted shingles after getting the shingles vaccine, contact us.

I can assure you, dear readers, that if a law firm is spending a lot of time and money to advertise for people to participate in a lawsuit that there are at least a couple of things going on.

  1.  There are more than just a few people that have contracted the virus post-vaccination (doesn’t this hint at the ineffectiveness of the vaccine?)
  2. There is a substantial amount of monetary gain to be realized by the victims (but most assuredly, the lawyers).

Why Big-Pharma Involvement?

So if the drug companies are susceptible to huge lawsuits over these vaccines, why would they bother to create them?  Well, there has been legislation that prevents vaccine manufacturers from liability for any medical issues that are attributable to many vaccines.  So why would Big-Pharma take expensive steps to ensure that their vaccines are safe and effective if they don’t have liability?  Seems to me that there must be substantially more money involved in the selling of these vaccines than in the payoff lost in lawsuits, anyway.  A business decision?  What is the risk vs. the reward?  Remember the Ford Pinto?  There also has been legislation that does not hold vaccine manufacturers liable for any medical issues that are attributable to these vaccines.  So why would Big-Pharma take expensive steps to ensure that their vaccines are safe and effective if they don’t have liability?

Maybe we ought to check out where the money for these programs is really going.  I am sure there would be some interesting recipients.