Re: Morgan Chaulk's letter in Your Views (Gazette, March 4). Morgan, after reading your article I was inspired to take your advice and do some research (readings) on the subject of vaccination.
Re: Morgan Chaulk's letter in Your Views (Gazette, March 4). Morgan, after reading your article I was inspired to take your advice and do some research (readings) on the subject of vaccination. I've focused on the areas that you have stressed and would like to share my thoughts and findings...
Firstly, some thoughts: I'd like to point out a contradiction in your first two paragraphs. You've stated that the “government doesn't care about our health, it cares about lining its own pockets.” You then express frustration for the pressure it puts on its citizens to get vaccinated. I would argue that that pressure is proof it cares about our health.
Next, some evidence from my research (readings). Your case for governments having interest in lining their pockets may have merit. For example, The Global Polio Eradication Initiative projects over the next 20 years will be able to turn a 5.5-billion investment, along with continued investment by some countries, into $25 billion in benefits. Preventing death and disability from polio will leave more humans able to work worldwide. I assume this would mean more taxpayers and more money for the government. You have me there. In Nigeria it is thought that polio vaccination could have an economic benefit of $4 billion. It will also save 30,000 to 35,000 lives. If the saved lives are only a byproduct of their government's quest for money, it is fine with me.
Closer to home, the MMR vaccine is more relevant since we aren't, yet, dealing with resurgences of some of the more devastating diseases, such as polio. You talk about the rights of “anti-vaxxers” being taken away. I believe that you do not give thought to the rights of their children as they may in fact wish to be vaccinated if presented with the evidence surrounding vaccines. I fear that you also fail to take into account those who are too young for vaccination or who are unable to be vaccinated due to immunologic status. These individuals benefit greatly when populations attain high vaccination rates and achieve herd immunity. If we assume that the MMR vaccine is 95 per cent effective, which it is, then that means five per cent of the people getting it will not achieve immunity. They will also, therefore, benefit from herd immunity. Understand that when someone decides that they or their children will not be immunized, the implications reach beyond themselves. Furthermore, a child who is unvaccinated and becomes infected with chicken pox, for example, will forever be at risk of developing potentially serious and debilitating complications from shingles. Even if they decide they are pro-vaccine once they are informed, the decision of their parents will leave them at risk for the rest of their life. An unfortunate situation, I believe, given they are paying for their parents' beliefs and not their own.
Please understand that the MMR vaccine, along with almost all others, is extremely safe. All meta-analyses show this. If your research (readings) has shown you otherwise, I would challenge you to put forward this evidence. If a vaccine were to be more likely to cause illness, death, or disability than the illness it aims to prevent, evidence based medicine would necessitate discontinuation of that vaccine. For this reason I doubt you will have success finding real research to support your views.
In closing, I would like you to consider this case. The parents of a perfectly healthy child refuse his MMR vaccination to negate the 1/X,000,000 chance that he might develop a serious complication from vaccination. Later in life this individual contracts rubella after a short trip to Japan. At the same time this individual's sister has recently learned that she is about four weeks pregnant. She also did not receive the MMR vaccine. In celebration of the news of the pregnancy, the brother decides to go out for dinner with his sister and her husband. He has developed some cold-like symptoms after returning, but doesn't want to let that stop him from sharing in the celebration. I implore you to read about what might happen if the brother passes on rubella to his sister by doing your own reading through a peer reviewed source.
Dan Durham, St. Albert
