Let's have a Conversation: Health & Vaccine Safety

The Guardian published an article this past October (2016), which reports that " Nurses and midwives who ignore scientific evidence by promoting anti-vaccination to patients and the public [will be] cracked down on in a tough new position statement from their industry regulator. " The article goes on to urge the public to report any nurse or midwife who promotes anti-vaccination literature (even on social media) so they can face prosecution for their "offence." This is troubling news for Australian nurses and midwives. What is labeled "anti-vaccination," more often than not, is discussion about vaccine safety. Since there is science to support both sides of this discussion (a lot of it), it does not make sense to censor one side over the other, and to do so is irresponsible and dangerous .  I will never understand why a more comprehensive and unbiased approach to vaccine science and studies, and health in general, is so seldom considered in

If our goal is health, then the risks and limitations of vaccines must be considered in earnest. The argument is not truly “pro” vs. “anti” vaccine as many like to project. The “argument,” or more appropriately, the discussion, is vaccine safety, known risks, and ways to improve, which should include a more personalized approach to health. The science is not settled—there are studies that implicate vaccines as a cause of autism , and there are studies that do not. In such cases, the call for more studies on the subject is warranted—and to say otherwise is truly anti-science. Are you aware that the United States had a Eugenics program up until just after World War II? The precedent for their Eugenics stance was Compulsory Vaccinations . “They believed vaccination protected individuals and the public from disease and eugenical sterilization protected society from ‘racial degeneracy’” (Humphries, 153). U.S. eugenics poster advocating for the removal of genetic "defectives&