For some reason these stories never bother to mention that exemptions exist. I'm not saying that no one should get the vaccines, but in Ohio parents have the right to refuse or delay vaccination. It's written in Ohio Revised Code, but that's been conveniently left out in every story I've seen as well as the letters I get from the school every few years. I just write a polite note with my reason for declining the vaccine for my children. So far, all of the school nurses have been very understanding and nice about it.
People in general, however, tend to get more heated. If your child had seizures, broke out in yeast rashes all over their body for months, had putrid smelling diarrhea for months, became paralyzed, or died as a direct cause of vaccination, you might hesitate to get more vaccinations or vaccinate your other children. However, parents and family of kids who had no reaction to vaccines seem to feel that our tiny percentage of kids who suffer years or a lifetime of vaccine side effect consequences are a fair trade off for "herd immunity" to be maintained.
I don't want little Suzie to get that itchy chicken pox! Oh, yeah, I forgot, almost all kids still get chicken pox even with the vaccine. Despite what you may take away from this, I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm just pro-vaccine choice. Some of us who are "unfortunate" enough to have lost out on the genetic lottery and are sensitive to vaccine side effects have a right (well, in most states) to decline or delay vaccines. What should be taking place is testing that will determine who is most likely to have a severe reaction, then we can vaccinate accordingly. Just like tesing new borns for PKU is now routine, even though it affects a minority of infants, it saves lives. Vaccine adverse effects that can be narrowed down to certain genes could save lives and prevent severely debilitating disabilities.
Whether its the diseases themselves or something used as a preservative, if we could narrow down the possibility of adverse events the vaccination rate would climb.
Instead we vilify families who choose not to vaccinate or who "put their baby at risk" while they allow his or her immune system to mature before exposing it to numerous diseases and known neurotoxins.
If lead were a preservative in vaccines would you brush it off as nothing? I doubt it, since we don't allow it in paint. But aluminum? Ah, that's a neurotoxin just like lead. Mercury, oh that's okay, so long as its "trace amounts".
Traditional medicine says not to take colloidal silver, which has "trace amounts" of silver. They quit using silver in many medicines, such as nasal drops. It is still used as an anti-microbial, and it is safe most of the time. But why do they suggest we avoid silver in foods, supplements and meds? They have a good reason: argyria.
It just turns your body, inside and out, greyish-blue. And turns your nails brittle. And other such tiny problems.
Why is it that some known neurotoxins are okay and others aren't? Maybe because most people tolerate some well, while others are bad for enough people that they aren't deemed a necessary risk.
I don't know about you, but I don't like to think that my children or family members should be a necessary risk so that others might potentially not get a disease that in most cases isn't fatal.
Oh, and don't worry, it's usually people who have compromised immune systems (i.e. bad genes) who die from things like pertussis and mumps. You know, those who are a necessary risk. Just let evolution weed us out with disease. ; )
(yes, I'm being facetitious...)