http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/donald-w-miller-jr-md/more-dangerous-than-measles/
Measles vs. MMR Vaccine: Risks and Benefits
By Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
February 12, 2015
*** begin quote ***
Short-lived vaccine immunity renders people under age 55-60 vulnerable to contracting measles at a bad age, with infants less than 1 year old and adults over 20 years old at greatest risk. The day may once again come when parents, while avoiding the vaccine, hold measles parties for their children in the age window of 5 to 9 years (like some families now do in Germany) so they can have measles at the safest time in their lives, thereby achieving the benefits of a strengthened immune system and lifelong natural immunity from this disease.
*** end quote ***
This, to me at least, was a very interesting well-reasoned piece about the tradeoffs we’re making.
Could it be that profits bought politicians and bureaucrats? And, now we are stuck with it.
And, of course, it’s unlikely that there will be any reasoned discourse on it.
I’m not a doctor, scientist, or parent, so I’m relegated to the role of “bystander” watching this particular “traffic accident”.
I’ve gone around on the more times than a revolving door. Now I’ve arrived at the position that “parents know best”. And, perhaps, “measles parties” are the best strategy. Certainly the cheapest. And, possibly, the one with the least side effects.
Hmmm, I wonder if there are other “choices” that are foisted on us by others “who know what’s good for us”?
As a little L libertarian who is pro-choice pro-life and anti-war, I’s suggest that everyone should make their own choices in life. Just don’t make me pay for them.
Argh!
# – # – # – # – #
Reinke Faces Life 
Interesting that naturally getting measles at the proper age confers LIFETIME immunity whereas the vaccination only gives one LIMITED immunity and requires subsequent booster shots.
Interesting that natural immunity strengthens our immune systems by challenging them. One reason attributed asthma increasing as that children don’t play outside, get dirty, and inhale allergens.
Interesting that the increased number and shortened interval of vaccination hasn’t been challenged or studied.
Of course, I see the Crony Capitalists and Gooferment politicians and bureaucrats in this to their elbows. Familiar with the Gardasil aka Gardisil or Silgard or recombinant human papillomavirus vaccine? It has a sordid history of payoffs and “deals”.
No, freedom and liberty. No exceptions. No compromises. Never!
LikeLike
Don’t some circumstances cry out for exceptions? For example, we went for many years without any kind of measles outbreaks due to all the vaccinations, it’s only been since ‘the choice’ has come into play that we are now having to deal with this disease once thought almost extinct. Things don’t necessarily have to be black and white do they? ie, you always have a choice? I am all for personal freedoms, but I think in some cases we have to make exceptions when our choices can cause others harm.
LikeLike
A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; “take it or leave it”.
It’s still a choice.
LikeLike
Severely limited or artificially restricted choice can lead to discomfort with choosing, and possibly an unsatisfactory outcome.
LikeLike
There is only one definition of choice.
Choice involves mentally making a decision: judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them.
Sometimes one’s choices are limited. For example, you have been captured. You can snuggle to free yourself. You can accept and accede to your captors demands. I am sure there are some others. All have consequences including torture, death, dismemberment.
LikeLike
I’d assert that’s a funny definition of the word “choice”.
LikeLike
I am saying that we all get to choose our actions. And of course I also said those actions (or inaction has consequences). When someone is holding a gun to your head the choice is between compliance and risk of death. it’s still a choice.
LikeLike
I guess would say that the Jews had a “choice” to board the trains or that the Tuskeegee experiment victims has a “choice” to accept “medical treatment”. I otoh would say that without informed consent in the absence of coercion, these are “forced” and not really choices. When an “outcome” is so horrific (i.e., you lose you life, liberty, or property), that’s not really a “choice”. But, we can agree to disagree agreeably. Now that’s a “choice”.
LikeLike
The military can’t be used as an example. Participants have basically volunteered to “take orders”.
Just because you don’t like the outcomes of your choices — exclusion from public participation — does not mean one has “no” choice. One always has a choice. Some choices have unwanted outcomes.
I can choose not to pay taxes. The unwanted outcome of which is possible incarceration. I can chose to hurt someone. That has multiple possible unwanted outcomes as well depending on the severity of the hurt.
LikeLike
One might say yes there are “forced immunizations in the US” if one consider that a “choice” made based on other than “informed consent” is “forced”. (And, of course, the military has “forced immunizations” all the time.)
LikeLike
“I wonder if there are other “choices” that are foisted on us by others “who know what’s good for us”?”
That sentence is in conflict with itself. Choices can’t be foisted on anyone. Last time I checked there are no forced immunizations in the USA.
LikeLike