No one had the right to be a highly contagious disease vector of a completely preventable disease.
That too.
I don’t care what you think of it, our constitution protects that right.
Most carriers are vaccinated or had prior exposure which is what allows the disease to be present in their systems without causing them any serious illness.
Try again.
Yes it is and our constitution specifically protects people’s right to religious and conscientious objections.
We have a right to try to change their minds with facts and logic but we have no right to take away their rights.
We have colostrum replacement for pets and farm animals but the only replacement for human colostrum would be to get milk from another human being.
The same logic by which people claim we should be able to force vaccinations on children who’s parents object says we should also be therefore within our rights as a society to force mothers to breast feed for at least six months. How popular would that be?
Mothers who care enough to do the best for their kids can feed them directly when home/with the child or pump and save breast milk to be fed to them when the mother is at work or away.
Shall we force them to do so in the name of public health and the welfare of their children?
Irrelevant argument.
There are some kids who don’t latch, & some moms who maybe don’t produce enough for the child to get adequate nourishment from breast feeding alone & the child needs to be at least supplemented with formula to grow.
Use of some medications makes breast feeding toxic as the medications can be transmitted to the infant. ■■■■ encouraging breast feeding.
■■■■ encouraging bottle feeding. Either or should be an individual choice based on circumstances, & bottle fed babies may have their quirks, but starvation isn’t one of them.
They don’t have to get all their nutrition from breast milk alone to benefit from the colostrum.
If you want to take away parent’s rights to make health choices for their kids then this would be the place to start. If the mother can’t provide it they can hire a wet nurse.
You can’t have it both ways.
Wet nurses in the most industrialized country in the world? Really?
And those who have allergies to a vaccine component or are immune suppressed have every right to opt out of vaccinations. Quite frankly, the rights of one to make choices should end where another’s well being begins.
Seems to me there wasn’t nearly the emphasis on breast feeding during the baby boom era as there is now, and kids managed to grow up healthy.
■■■■ pushing breast feeding. There’s more to mother/infant health than that.
No kids during the boomer era did not grow up healthy, many of us contracted dreaded diseases like Mumps, Measels, Rubella, Whooping Cough, and suffered the negative effects of mothers who smoked and drank.
The research on the benefits of breast milk didn’t even begin until the eighties in earnest and the data is undeniable.
You can find wet nurses online with ease in the “most industrialized nation on earth”.
Infant and child mortality rates have dropped by over half since 1945.
https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/infant-child-and-teen-mortality
Here are some complications of exclusive breast feeding when the infant isn’t getting adequate nourishment. And, since the topic is contagious illnesses, one would think inadequate nourishment would open up anyone—all the more the most vulnerable—to infection.
Being adequately fed—breast, bottle, combined—is important for growth and immunity. It’s wrong to push one way or the other because what works for one may not for another, as some who have tried to exclusively nurse have discovered.
And, seriously, I wonder if food allergies are a byproduct of pushing exclusivity of breast feeding to the point of delaying the introduction of cereals, fruits, nuts. Don’t get introduced to something early, there isn’t as much opportunity to develop a tolerance to it.
Can you find anywhere I’ve suggested breast feeding should be the only source of nutrition for any infant much less all of them?
No formula gives any benefit to developing immunity.
Carriers of measles would not be exposed to the virus in the first place if herd immunity was never compromised in the first place.
Don’t be on the side of arguing for unnecessary suffering and death.
It is a no brainer.
1 Like
Breast feeding is not an effective alternative to vaccination.
It is an irrelevant sidebar to add it to the conversation
1 Like
Wrong again. The disease still exists so there will always be carriers.
Unless you are going to seal our borders and ban entry by anyone who cannot prove immunity and that they aren’t carriers we will always have periodic outbreaks no matter how many people are vaccinated.
Herd immunity prevents epidemics, it cannot prevent the disease from ever popping up again.
Some portion of those who are vaccinated will develop only partial immunity or no immunity at all so as long as it exists in the environment there will be new cases occasionally.
I stand for two things. The rights of parents to decide for their children and epidemiology which I have actually studied.
Nobody ever said it was an “alternative” much less an “effective alternative”.
The passive immunity gained from colostrum is temporary, not permanent.
The child’s immune system has to be challenged either by exposure or vaccination in order to build their own immunity.
No. Herd immunity reaches and maintains a certain level, the measles virus is effectively out of the human population.
How do we know this?
Because we achieved it.
Unnecessarily Unvaccinated people give the virus a chance to spread that it would never have. It is intentionally spreading suffering and death to strangers for no reason and no one has that right.
And you remain wrong period.
Unless you seal the borders you cannot rely on herd immunity and even with it there will still be cases that pop up when those who were vaccinated but for whatever reason developed no immunity or only partial immunity.
Herd immunity is not magic and it isn’t a a panacea. All that is required for herd immunity to fail is for someone with littler or no immunity to be exposed and contract the disease and again, the carriers are usually those who were vaccinated and developed partial immunity enabling them to carry the disease with few if any symptoms.
Measles is so easily recognizable anyone displaying the classic symptoms will be immediately identified the first time they come in contact with anyone with any medical training at all.
“Unnecessarily non-immunized” people only increase the likelihood of an outbreak, they are not the sole reason for same.
Here is the thing.
Only one of us is arguing on the side of people unnecessarily spreading suffering and death.
The person doing that is in the wrong.
Not me.
1 Like
You’ve been wrong since you started as I have repeatedly shown.
Parents have rights, the state doesn’t own our kids.
The anti vaxxers are idiots but that doesn’t change the fact they have the right to say no.
You also have no understanding whatsoever of disease processes, basic immunology and especially epidemiology.
You keep repeating vacuous talking points not supported by any actual facts and claim victory in doing so.
That isn’t a winning argument.
