Let's have a Conversation: Health & Vaccine Safety

When I first started looking into vaccination, I was trying to convince myself that vaccines were indeed safe and effective--and that all those people who had "adverse reactions" were "coincidence." To my great and humbling surprise, I did not find this to be true. As I dove deeper into my research, I came across several resources that I found particularly helpful. Now, I would like to share them with you. Organizations/Groups: National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) : This organization has been around since 1982! "The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to defending the informed consent ethic in medicine." Their website has an abundance of useful information in an easy-to-navigate format: http://www.nvic.org/ They even have an advocacy portal to keep you connected to important issues in your state (just register and get involved)! Pennsylva...

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...

I recently read this article titled: Defending a parent's right to withhold vaccines when they want to  in Philly Voice. I was pleasantly surprised to find the writer (Amy Wright Glenn) was pro-vaccine--especially since mainstream media likes to portray the debate as being strictly black and white. Considering myself a nuance of gray too, I really enjoyed the openness, sincerity, and understanding she brought to the topic of informed consent and vaccine mandates. Here's an excerpt from the article: All who are pro-vaccine support the existence of medical exemptions, because some children cannot be safely vaccinated. But not all who are pro-vaccine support mandatory vaccination laws that remove religious or philosophical exemptions. Award-winning pediatrician Paul Thomas, M.D., co-author of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan and father of 10 vaccinated children, argues: “It’s up to the parents—not the government or any doctor—to ultimately decide what will work best for their child...