Fascinating.
There’s a spike in reported cases of mumps this year. But it’s not grabbing headlines like a couple of years ago when measles at Disneyland provided the necessary ammunition for states like California to ram through mandatory vaccination legislation.
I wonder why not?
Perhaps the difference in reporting levels is that there is already a vaccine for mumps that most children receive. Twice. The majority of those self-reporting in the current outbreak also received the recommended double-dose vaccination against mumps. Yet mumps is showing up in near-record numbers this year all the same. There have been other years where mumps has increased, which is itself an interesting phenomenon. Other sources acknowledge we don’t really know how effective the vaccine is, for how long. In other words, does the immunity fade over time, and if so, over how long a period? Nobody knows these things, apparently, despite the fact that citizens are being forced to receive vaccinations. How good a solution is it to just tack on a third dose of the vaccine? What sorts of side-effects might that cause? How can it even be suggested when we don’t apparently understand the effectiveness of the current regimen?
Yet another reason why I still disagree with mandatory vaccinations. I don’t argue that they can provide some real benefits, but I don’t think we know nearly enough about what we’re doing to force people to receive them.
December 28, 2016 at 6:30 pm |
Great post. Chemical injections are an insane practice. Pharma desperately tries to recreate what already exists in nature. The fact that they can’t means they add more of these toxic injections to the menu.
December 29, 2016 at 11:59 am |
Hi Lort. It seems apparent that there can be very real benefits to certain vaccinations. But the lack of reliable long-term data on vaccinations in regards both to safety and efficacy over time should give us pause for thought before making them mandatory.