Vaccines, Are They Safe?

David M Cooper
Carmen Hoover
29 November 1998
Cause and Effect, Final Draft

Is it wise to Immunize?

For those who have witnessed the birth of a child, it can be an awe-inspiring event. The growth and development of this tiny individual go largely unnoticed by most, except for the occasional twitching and kicking which the mother does detect. It is not until birth, that the parent's responsibilities are made evident in a big way. This new human being will be depending on them for its every single need. Important decisions will have to be made. Will the child be breast-fed? There are choices involving day care providers, pediatric providers, brands of diapers, and if it is a baby boy, the decision on whether or not to circumcise. Many well-intentioned parents make the decision to immunize and never give a second thought to possible dangers or harm to the baby. After all, most doctors insist it is the best interest of the child's health.

Initially, the inoculation, or vaccine was developed with a genuine interest in the health and well being of the general public. The diseases that ravaged the world prior to our present day, were horrible in scale and in the debilitating effects that they inflicted upon the human body. The bubonic plague of fourteenth century Europe was estimated to have killed as many as one in four people and in some areas fifty percent of the population (The Academic American Encyclopedia 1998).

Effective vaccines were developed as a way of stimulating the body's dormant immune system, and therefore creating a defense for fighting invading organisms. Many physicians boast of the great achievements that widespread inoculations have produced. Some suggest that modern medicine deserves credit for the decline or even the disappearance of a particular disease. Is this accurate? History has demonstrated that unsanitary people and/or living conditions is what will contribute to an epidemic. For example, the bubonic plague came from diseased rats and cholera is generally contracted from water contaminated with sewage or dead animals. Common sense dictates that by establishing high standards of hygiene and general cleanliness will reduce incidences of disease. Most diseases eventually ran their course and died out, as was the case before vaccines came to our rescue. So, it would be illogical to assume that the vaccine alone will eradicate the epidemic.

The living conditions of our times are significantly better than any other time period in history. The federal government has implemented programs to feed the poor and to make certain that the children are kept healthy and in safe homes. The government's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) closely regulates the quality of our food. A department of health inspects cleanliness in public eateries. Our air that we breathe is monitored by the environmental protection agency. Our drinking water is thoroughly tested and certified to be safe. All of these, coupled with an emphasis on nutrition and health awareness, have collectively contributed to the eradication of major diseases. It would seem as though the United States would have reason to boast over an unusually healthy population. On the contrary, in 1995, there were twenty-three countries with a lower infant mortality rate. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is the still the leading cause of infant deaths in the United States (Miller 18). "The Japanese government, in 1979, noted a cause-and-effect relationship between the diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) shot combination and SIDS. In response, that country's health department ordered the postponement of routine DPT shots until children were at least two years old. The result: SIDS has virtually disappeared from Japan, while here in the United States, SIDS still claims about eight-thousand babies a year. Is it purely coincidental that doctors in Australia have also noted respiratory problems in babies shortly after being administered the DPT vaccine (Miller 19)?

What role do vaccines play in the heath of our children? When backed into a corner, most doctors will admit to potential, yet rare, side effects. They also assert that the risks associated with the disease are greater than the chance of a serious complication due to the vaccine. This makes sense if only the documented cases of side effects are considered. Even the FDA admits that ninety percent of doctors do not report adverse side effects and deaths due to the shots. This means that the current statistic of seven-hundred deaths between 1990 and 1994 could very easily be seven-thousand (Miller 35).

Consider this: If a manufacturer produces a toy designed to entertain children, and after selling huge quantities, it is discovered to pose a risk of injury or death, there would surely be an immediate nationwide recall of that product. In some cases this is done following a handful of injuries only. Why is this not the case with the dangerous vaccines? Further, what if the manufacturer of the aforementioned toy knew of the danger that the toy posed? Certainly those found responsible in the company would be prosecuted aggressively and the public would be outraged. In line with this illustration, consider the fact that there has not been a case of the classic polio since 1979. Every case of polio since 1980 has been found to be caused by the polio vaccine. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) openly admits that the oral vaccine causes eight or more cases per year(CDC 2).

Note the ingredients that the vaccine may contain. For example, the DPT inoculation is made with formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, aluminum and thimerosal (derived from mercury), all of which are extremely toxic and cancer causing, even in tiny doses. This sounds like a frightening witch's brew!

Statistics and safety arguments aside, of primary concern with a great many parents is the concealment of truths about dangers associated with vaccines and dealing with indignance from doctors who feel that those refusing to immunize are insane. CDC data shows that more than twenty-seven percent of children are not fully immunized (CDC 1). One fact is certain, mothers and fathers do have the right to choose what is best for their family, just as the pregnant woman can choose to have her baby or not and individuals have the right to choose their own sexual orientation. When parents choose not to immunize their children, they are only hoping to bring the very best of health to that child. Parents who make an informed decision are motivated by one emotion, their love for that child. They ought not to be criticized, just respected.

Works Cited

Miller, Neil Z. Immunization Theory vs. Reality. Exposé on Vaccinations. New Atlantean Press: Santa Fe, NM, 1996.

Center for Disease Control. Morbidity and Mortality Statistics - National. Online. Data Text Page. 29 November, 1998. Available WWW: /http://www:cdc.com

Summary

The general purpose of this information is to bring a new viewpoint to a commonly held belief that vaccinations are the best or only option available, and to inform parents of dangers that they may never have realized existed. All of the information is designed simply to inform and not necessarily to discount the abilities or achievements of those in the medical field or of medical practices in general.

The theme of this paper follows this overall idea: Vaccinations are generally dangerous and in some cases unnecessary.

Also, another purpose of this material is to infer that the statistics are not made readily available and sometimes concealed from the public. Hopefully, this will arouse a curiosity within individuals and encourage them to gather the facts for themselves and not arrive at conclusions based solely on what was written in this paper.