Many parents who choose not to vaccinate their children do not understand why they are provoking the wrath of all the other residents
Many parents who choose not to vaccinate their children do not understand why they are provoking the wrath of all the other residents.
"What happened already? If your children are vaccinated and protected against the disease, why do you care that we don't vaccinate our children?"
Even if we ignore the implicit assumption that parents are allowed to endanger their children's health in the name of superstitions, the full answer is more complicated. The truth is that no vaccine is perfect. Out of any population of vaccinated people, there will always be a certain percentage of children, however small, who will not develop an immune response and will not be protected against the disease. These children join the population of adults whose immune system has difficulty functioning: pregnant women, the elderly, tissue transplant recipients and others. All of these are vulnerable to infectious diseases that the unvaccinated children can transmit to them. Due to their precarious health status to begin with, these patients also tend to suffer more from possible complications.
A reminder of this point came today from Kibbutz Beit Keshet (so from mynet), where several families live - it is not known exactly how many - who choose not to vaccinate their children against the measles virus. This is, of course, their full right, until this right causes harm to others.
According to the scripture, one of the residents of the kibbutz, Ilana Eshel, discovered during her pregnancy that she had been in the presence of a child with measles. Since measles is especially dangerous for pregnant women, the woman had to receive a unique tolerable vaccine against the disease, specially prepared for her at a cost of one thousand new shekels, and given to her in four separate injections.
Ilana and her family distributed a letter among the members of the kibbutz, in which she clarified the problematic situation she and other families found themselves in, as a result of others choosing not to vaccinate their children. and I quote -
"You didn't get vaccinated and ignored a population at risk - we got vaccinated.
You didn't shut yourself up in your houses - we shut ourselves up.
You bring guests to the kibbutz - we don't bring guests to the kibbutz."
The meaning is clear: the way of life chosen by certain families in the kibbutz is harmful, and even poses a real physical risk, for the other residents of the kibbutz.
The kibbutz is meeting these days to make joint decisions regarding the way to deal with the allegations, and according to what is written in the article, it seems that everyone understands that action needs to be taken. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to convince the families to vaccinate their children, but it is possible that formulating preventive instructions like this - "If the child is sick with measles, don't let him leave the house" - could help prevent the spread of the disease. Even then, it is not a reliable way to stop the spread of measles. But this is a start.
There are two points that particularly interest me in the case.
The first is whether the kibbutz will choose to 'force' the families to get vaccinated, through the threat of sanctions. Although the law does not oblige parents to vaccinate their children, the kibbutz can choose to remove members it is not interested in. It is quite possible that he reserves the legal right to order the unvaccinated families to leave the kibbutz (or at least deny their membership in the kibbutz) if it becomes clear that their presence harms the other members. Will he choose to do so? Maybe. We'll see.
The second interesting point is more difficult, as it raises an alternative possible scenario. What would have happened if Ilana Eshel had contracted measles during pregnancy, and died, heaven forbid? The blame was immediately placed on the unvaccinated families. Would it be possible to sue them, or the kibbutz management, for the terrible damage they caused? Maybe for accidental manslaughter? I'm not an expert in law, but intuitively (which we've already learned to be careful of, but whatever) it seems to me that there is definitely a case here, and perhaps one that could set a serious precedent in the law books. In England, one child already died of measles in 2008 whose immune system did not function properly. In that case it was not clear who infected the child. In Kibbutz Beit Keshet, it seems clear that the collective blame can be placed on a very limited number of families.
I am happy that Ilana Eshel is still healthy and intact, and that her health was not harmed (although her wallet must have suffered). I am also happy that the kibbutz is trying to reach an informed and serious decision regarding the steps to be taken, while engaging in a dignified and respectful dialogue with the families who are not immunized. Nevertheless, it is sad to see outbreaks of measles in Israel. It is the only disease transmitted exclusively by humans, and a sufficiently broad vaccination of a population can completely eliminate it from the world. Everywhere where the percentage of people vaccinated decreased in the last decade, measles epidemics broke out and caused the death of many children.
If you are parents of toddlers, I appeal to you: be responsible for your actions, and know the consequences of the choices you make. Don't hurt other people's children. Do not harm pregnant women and their fetuses. Don't kill the grandparents of other children.
Protect your children.
26 תגובות
The author of the article is an evil and inciting demagogue!
I agree with pineapple. I did not vaccinate my daughter with any vaccine and I am certainly willing to bear the financial responsibility for the treatment of any disease against which vaccines are given. Until now the only disease of this kind was chicken pox. The wounds healed in two days, so there was no need to go to the doctor. Since then, 6 years have passed in which my daughter has not been sick with any disease even once, so it seems to me that the policy of strengthening the immune system is proving itself and I have no doubt that even if she falls ill with other diseases of this type - she will get over them quickly and easily.
All the unvaccinated parents have reported that the unvaccinated children are healthier than their vaccinated older siblings, so I'm not worried.
The solution to the issue is to impose the full financial meaning on the person who is not vaccinated or on his parents regarding a minor
It is everyone's right to decide that they do not want to be vaccinated, however, those who have not been vaccinated cannot demand that the company bear the consequences of not being vaccinated.
It must therefore be determined that those who were given the opportunity to be vaccinated and chose not to do so will not be entitled to any funding for any medical procedure related to the disease for which they refrained from being vaccinated
If the measles vaccine is not effective enough and a pregnant woman who is vaccinated against measles is afraid that her vaccine might actually no longer be valid, then maybe she should get vaccinated again before pregnancy, instead of asking others to get vaccinated?
The ineffectiveness of the vaccines put their viability in question. It may be more profitable for the country to strengthen the immune system of the population instead of investing a lot of money in specific vaccines, which are effective only against a certain strain of the bacteria and not against the new strains that will develop later.
Not true, there is a close connection between the distribution of the vaccine and the number of cases of tuberculosis, measles and other infectious diseases. These viruses are not impressed by sewage. The only reason for comments like yours is that the conspirators sleep well at night murdering children with such comments, while I am worried that even one child will be harmed because parents who do not understand science (and because of the media, no one understands science) will be convinced by this stupid argument of sanitation. Even in Africa, where the sanitation on the face was a decrease in the number of deaths from these diseases after vaccination operations.
My father's statement:
"Diseases that killed people like flies are today history because of vaccines"
Not backed by scientific evidence.
These conclusions were documented in the scientific literature:
"A steady decrease in infectious diseases has been recorded in most developing countries regardless of the rate of vaccinations given...Infectious diseases have disappeared as a result of [improvement in] sanitation, improved public water supply, improved personal hygiene and an increase in the consumption of fruits and vegetables. In addition, diseases for which there has never been a vaccine have also decreased dramatically. From 1850 to 1940, diseases decreased by 90% and reached an all-time low when vaccines began to appear.
World Health Statistics Annual 1973 – 1976, Volume 2
"The decline [in morbidity] of diphtheria, whooping cough and typhoid began a full fifty years before the introduction of artificial vaccines and continued almost equally before and after the adoption of these control measures. In the case of diphtheria, mumps, measles, and rheumatic fever, there was no innovation in control measures, but these diseases registered a similar downward trend in the incidence of morbidity."
McCormick WJ, Vitamin C in the Prophylaxis and Therapy of Infectious Diseases; Archives of Pediatrics, Vol. 68, no. 1, January 1951
"...therefore, vaccines are not responsible for the impressive declines in infant mortality in the first half of the [twentieth] century."
Bernard Guyer et al., Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century, Pediatrics Vol. 106 no. 6 December 1, 2000 pp. 1307 -1317
"In general, it seems that medical intervention (medicinal and prophylactic) contributed little to the overall decrease in mortality rates in the US from 1900 onwards, when in many cases [medicine] appeared decades after a significant decrease was recorded and without any noticeable contribution at all in most cases. In particular, referring to the five diseases (influenza, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio) in which a decrease in the rate of deaths is evident after the point of [medical] intervention - on the unlikely assumption that medicine contributed to all of this decrease - we estimate that medicine has a contribution of at most 3.5% of the total The decrease in mortality rates since 1900 [until 1973]"
The questionable contribution of medical measures to the decline of mortality in the United States in the twentieth century". McKinlay JB, McKinlay SM, Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Summer;55(3):405-28
"In order to evaluate priorities in health policy... the first requirement is to reach a conclusion as to the reasons for the decline of infectious diseases... in all countries that developed rapidly a significant improvement in nutrition was achieved which led to increased resistance [to diseases]. Indeed, in some countries it was the only important influencing factor. It is perhaps surprising that vaccines have apparently contributed relatively little to these developments.
McKeown T., The Road to Health, World Health Forum, Published by the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 410 and 411
"The death rate from infectious diseases dropped significantly until 1937; When only in this year the widespread use of sulfonamide drugs began, and antibiotics were still several years away. Intestinal typhoid disappeared almost completely and the death rate from measles dropped sharply. A medical student who got to see a case of diphtheria was an exceptional case."
"Until the second World War and the beginning of the era of chemotherapy, the decrease [in infant mortality up to one year of age] seems to be closely related to an improvement in the biological environment, especially less crowded housing, the quantity and quality of drinking water, personal hygiene and sewage disposal."
"The unusual decrease in mortality from intestinal infections in the first half of the 20th century is, apparently, to the credit of two main factors: significant environmental improvements, which reduced the spread of disease agents, and great progress in understanding fluids and electrolyte treatments."
"Guaranteed employment led to less overcrowding in housing and more options for personal hygiene, essential factors in breaking the chain of infection [in intestinal infectious diseases]."
"The decrease in housing density played a significant role [in reducing the death rate from pneumonia and influenza], before the age of antibiotics."
"The relationship between nutrition and infectious diseases has been recognized for some time, as documented in Schrimsau's classic work from 1975"
Symposium: Accomplishments in Child Nutrition during the 20th Century. Infant Mortality in the 20th Century, Dramatic but Uneven Progress, Myron E. Wegman; School of Public Health, University of Michigan; The Journal of Nutrition; 131:401S-408S, 2001
"Medical intervention is the least important of the four factors that affect health status. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed data on the ten leading causes of death in the US and determined that lifestyle is the most significant factor (51%), followed by the environment (20%), biological heredity (19%) and finally – Medical intervention (10%)
US Department of Health & Human Services, Ten Leading Causes of Death in the US, 1977, July 1980
"The epidemiology of infectious herd diseases, especially among children, is strongly influenced by social and demographic factors that have contributed to the general decrease in morbidity and mortality over the past 50 years and more. It is not possible to realistically evaluate or plan the vaccination policy without considering these background factors"
Stewart GT, Infection and Immunization., Scott Med J. 1979 Jan;24(1):47-52
"It does not matter if the reason for the decrease in mortality rates from these diseases is related to an improvement in sanitation conditions, a decrease in population density, the adoption of proper hygiene rules or a combination of these and other factors. The data shows one thing consistently: the cause is not related to vaccines.
Also writing that measles is a deadly disease is a kind of distortion of reality. It's like writing that life itself is the most deadly disease....
Would you be willing to earn one penny and pay 5,000 shekels for it? It's obvious, so why if one person is harmed by the vaccine because of an allergy or a problem with the storage of the vaccine instead of 500,000 people who would have died from the disease that the vaccine prevents, isn't it worthwhile? Those who do not understand statistics think that these are equal risks and there are fools who even think that the risk from the vaccine is greater than the benefit from it. These are nonsense. Diseases that killed people like flies are history today because of the vaccines and unfortunately because of the fools who hate science, there is a return of measles and other deadly diseases.
The writer completely ignores the danger that vaccines pose to the entire population.
Like most of the medical establishment, the doctors and the school of modern medicine studies and the pharmaceutical companies, he makes sure to ignore the facts about vaccines.
Much information exists on vaccines and shows that the toxic substances in them cause many damages of varying degrees of severity to the human body.
It is possible to deny time and time again the direct connection between the administration of vaccines and the epidemic of autoimmune diseases from which millions of children in the world suffer: juvenile diabetes, asthma, and many other autoimmune diseases, as well as an epidemic of cancer in children and of course a meteoric increase in the number of children who become autistic after receiving several vaccine doses . In addition to all the symptoms of the lack of attention and concentration that children suffer from today, an epidemic of allergies to anything that moves or lives, death in the crib, the "shaking baby symptom" and many other symptoms caused by the exposure of the human body to toxins and the contents of the drugs known as "vaccines".
The writer would prefer to ignore all of these and refer to the dangers of the parents who do not vaccinate.
It is not surprising that people remain loyal to their familiar approach and out of denial (conscious or not) will ignore facts and remain stuck in their "truths".
However, it is important for us as people responsible for our own health and that of our child to recognize the dangerous stubbornness of denial and find out the facts ourselves.
Mr. Max Power,
Passive smoking is statistically much more harmful to pregnant women than non-vaccination!
Even the chocolate spread you send your child to kindergarten with spoils my son's nutrition and harms his health.
The sick child you send to kindergarten/school after giving them paracetamol, instead of leaving them at home at all puts all the children and all the parents at risk.
So, jail awaits you XD
For the concerned parent, if there are vaccinated who are not sufficiently vaccinated, then all the more the herd should be vaccinated to protect them (besides that the vaccine is always good, certainly for the children who take it)
SAFKAN In this article not all the data were presented as they were published in the original publication, in practice the pregnant woman is vaccinated for all the same diseases as you and your household members who are vaccinated are vaccinated. Since she has a chronic disease that weakens her immune system, she is considered unvaccinated for these types of diseases.
So for the sake of clarification, the lady does have a place to make claims to others, since they put her at risk just like her and there are many people walking around among us with weak immune systems: babies, pregnant women, cancer patients in the chemo stages, or other types of patients who take drugs that suppress the immune system.
זה
יוני
This is exactly one of the characteristics of faith
The beliefs of the others are false and yours is complete and scientific truth
According to what is written, it is implied that Ilana Eshel (the one who is pregnant) was not vaccinated and therefore she was required to have a booster vaccination. Based on this she demands that others be vaccinated.
That Mrs. Eshel will come with claims for herself. If she was not vaccinated on time, why does she make demands on others?
If Mrs. Eshel had been vaccinated, her chances of being harmed would be zero (say 1 in a million), therefore she also cannot meet the requirements for others. Life is dangerous for all kinds of reasons (the chance that you will be hurt by a car accident is greater than the risk that you will be hurt by measles), it is impossible to have hermetic protection from every trouble that will not come.
To Roy Cezana
Your words are absolutely and without a doubt true.
There is indeed a difficult ethical problem, is it possible and permissible to compel parents to vaccinate.
But why did you choose to focus specifically on Kibbutz Beit Keshet?
It is known that there are much larger populations in Israel, where resistance and avoidance of vaccinations is widespread,
For example among the ultra-Orthodox and also all kinds of different classes. They also come into contact with populations
At risk as you mentioned. is not it ?
The problem of avoiding vaccination is part of a more general problem, which is the belief in religious healing powers
Mysticism and alternative medicine. There is no doubt that the law has not yet been able to provide an answer to this problem.
It is necessary in my opinion that the legislator (ie the Knesset), with the encouragement of the leaders of education in society, give his opinion
And enact a suitable law requiring every child to be vaccinated!!!
How is this different from the ban on smoking in public places?
The people - indeed, there is agreement.
to the other me,
Admittedly, I disagree with your worldview in many areas (so it seems to me)
And indeed I believe that parents should vaccinate their children.
But I tend to agree with you about the obligation to give a vaccine (not desirable, or preferably avoided).
In my opinion, the solution is in educating the public, in presenting facts, in stricter observance of "journalistic ethics" and in education for critical thinking, with an emphasis on the ability to understand what is valuable and what is not, what is reliable and what is self-interested (I assume that we will agree on this point as well, although we will not necessarily agree on the division within those "titles").
A law that requires vaccination or "killing cats" for the purpose of your example, should only be accepted after a thorough examination of the material and the severity of the risk.
In other words, it is not enough to state that mumps endangers pregnant women, it is necessary to check how common mumps is and how much it "actually" endangers the public. In addition, in my opinion, it is better to avoid laws and restrictions as long as the other options are not exhausted.
Max,
In an ideal world you might be right. In a world far from our idyll when many parents have concerns (justified or not, that's not the point) to vaccinate their children, such a law must not be issued.
Otherwise why measles and not chicken pox or toxoplasmosis or anything else that endangers someone somewhere?
Life is uncertain, there are dangers everywhere. Everyone does according to their best sense and understanding to protect themselves and up to a certain point also others. For one it is to vaccinate against measles and for another it is exactly the opposite, there is no place for laws here. Those who want certainty should lock themselves at home in a clean room...
There is already a similar law,
The Knesset issued a law, (it also clearly belongs to the field of public health), which protects a certain public against injury (physical or mental), of a very deadly epidemic called "current security", although similar to the vaccination of children, the unvaccinated are completely exposed to the dangers of the epidemic, which is completely different from a vaccine Children, the unvaccinated are the vaccine itself. And his creation, the state imposed on that public, the unvaccinated.
There is indeed some justice in the comments of the commenters, but the fact is that the polio vaccine eliminated the disease and the tuberculosis vaccine almost eliminated the disease. It exists in Africa and India, where vaccinations are not strictly enforced, these are facts and therefore should be vaccinated.
Chickenpox virus is also dangerous for pregnant women and their fetuses - should all children be forced to be vaccinated against chickenpox?
The toxoplasmosis virus is also dangerous for pregnant women and their fetuses - should all cat owners be forced to destroy them and forbid the women to eat fruits, vegetables and meat? And maybe we will go further and imprison all the people who carry this virus in their blood?
It is also very dangerous for pregnant women and their fetuses to stay in the big cities because of the high particle pollution, especially in certain parts of Haifa - should the chemical industry in Haifa be closed for good or at least forced to comply with the pollution standards of a reformed country? Yes of course.
shall we do it No. It is easier to look for the coin under the lamp - let's treat children who have not been vaccinated against measles like lepers. It costs less and it is much easier to demonize them than the polluting industry.
Max
Another point, a sick or injured child can definitely be a burden on society/the public, not only on the parents.
Max
This is exactly what I wrote ""If it turns out for sure that no vaccine directly endangers public health"
However, I raised a specific point regarding a situation where a particular vaccination is in danger for the vaccinee or a particular vaccination
There is no consensus among the scientists regarding the level of its danger to the vaccine, it is clear that if there is no risk to the vaccine it will be correct
Mandatory to vaccinate if there is a danger to the public by not vaccinating.
Smoking and the rest of the things I brought to light that it is extremely difficult for the state to protect a citizen who goes through the actions or behavior of his parents that endangers his life.
.
Seriously, you didn't understand the problem with not vaccinating children, if you use drugs, drink alcohol, and smoke, the retarded child you have is mainly your problem, when you don't vaccinate and get infected, you pass your problem on to the general public, so the decision is not only yours, for example, if you were sick They isolate you and don't let you walk around in public.
It's not a simple question, what can parents be required to do or have to do in relation to their children in the field of health.
For example smoking, drinking alcohol. or drug use, during pregnancy, or any activity that may cause harm to the fetus
or abortion. I appreciate that doctors could add more items to that list,
If it turns out with certainty that no vaccine directly endangers public health, as in the case of the rabies vaccine (in dogs) and there is no danger to the children from the vaccine, it seems that it would be correct to oblige the parents, according to law.