Leaving and makes me sick Vaccines, was 30 Holistic Doctors Poisoned in Germany

[John Harvey]

Not to put the boot in, Elham: you are of course correct in saying that a mere understanding of homoeopathy does not lead directly to the conclusion that all or any vaccines are undesirable. But, to what Irene has just said here, which I'm broadly in agreement with, I'd like to add that argument on that point is merely argument about dogma, and it is necessarily rendered moot when all sides have access to the state of evidence concerning individual vaccines' effectiveness, safety, and even historical relevance to the society in which they might be used.

What Irene might have pointed out explicitly to you, though she did not, is that skepticism of vaccinations against particular diseases in particular regions has arisen in many cases not through the individual skeptic's ignorance, as you have supposed, but rather through learning

(a) the radical truth of the irrelevance of certain diseases epidemiologically in modern societies and

(b) the lamentable state of the evidence concerning individual vaccines' safety even in the short term, let alone the long term, and protectiveness: that such relevant trustworthy evidence as exists rather argues against their usefulness and safety. (Such evidence, though incomplete, abounds, and is freely available from several well-curated vaccination sites.)
Besides that, a position you have repeatedly espoused, that one person should risk this medical procedure for the (purely hypothetical) sake of lowering the exposure of another person to morbid microorganisms -- moreover, exposure in some manner as yet unexplained -- is offensive to all whose grasp on medical ethics or human rights exceeds their grasp on authority or profit. There can be no legitimate excuse for exposing one person to such risk for the (putative) benefit of another; it is the classic justification for totalitarianism of the worst kind.

We are all subject to uncertainty, ignorance, and misunderstanding, and must offer forgiveness for these when they occur in others. But neither uncertainty nor ignorance nor even the most authoritative kind of hearsay can be justification for uttering demonstrably absurd absolutes in the guise of authoritative advice, let alone for decreeing any kind of moral subjugation of one person's liberties for another's supposed gain.

Let me put to you that if the argument that one person should be obliged to take such a risk for the sake of another, then, by the same argument, society must place equal pressure toward surrender of civil liberties on
• parents who refuse to x-ray their foetuses for the sake of early detection;

• parents who refuse to take thalidomide for morning sickness;

• alcoholics who may endanger others;

• farmers who refuse to protect their neighbours’ crops by spraying DDT on their own;

• all who frustrate counter-terrorism surveillance by putting curtains in their windows; and

• those who do not contribute to taxation by gambling and buying alcohol.

If these examples strike you as ludicrous, then you may begin to see the insupportability of your argument that some should risk their health in an effort to not fall ill, possibly temporarily harbour some contagion, and thereby hypothetically place others at risk.
Kind regards,

John