Conventional medicine is not infallible, it has many failures and there is much to improve, but in view of the evidence, it also has many successes and It is the best medicine we have today. That is why we should not turn our backs without thinking twice about the possible consequences.
Turning his back completely is what a woman, a mother, does as a vegan who decided that her children would be too and chose not to vaccinate them or give them medicines to keep their bodies "free of toxins," as explained in IFLScience.
The father, on the other hand, thinks differently, and for that reason he requested a court order in order to ensure that the children had to be vaccinated, and the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled in their favor, so children have to get vaccinated.
"He is behaving obsessively"
According to the father, the mother had been behaving "obsessively, overprotectively and with a very closed mentality" for some time around the issue of health and feeding of her children. Apparently, he had reached the point of suspecting everything related to conventional medicine until he refused, for example, to have children take even paracetamol syrup.
During the trial, the mother defended her convictions by explaining that it is not natural for children to inject metals and that, as a vegan, it was against her beliefs as a mother "to inject something that is grown in animal cells, or that is tested with animals".
He didn't get any doctor to support her
The judge made use of a 1989 law that it allows justice to act above the parents' wish if the welfare of the children is at stake, and now his children will be vaccinated according to the express desire of the father.
Apparently, they asked the mother to support her vision with the opinion of a doctor who could argue based on her principles, but this did not happen. This subtracted his defense and the judge came to affirm that he had doubts about the mother's ability to be objective and impartial in choosing the best for her children.
Were their children really in danger?
Yes and no. The risk for unvaccinated children living in a community of mostly vaccinated children is very low. With a well vaccinated population, which will hardly catch the diseases for which it is vaccinated, it is complicated for contagion to occur and, as a consequence, these children are at low risk.
If both the father and the mother had decided not to vaccinate, they would hardly have ended up in court; But of course, when one of the two decides yes and the other one does not, the least risky is usually to vaccinate children, because the more children there are not vaccinated, the less is the protection of a community.
In addition, it is not clear that unvaccinated children have better overall health than vaccinated children (at least not because of this issue). Years ago we talked about the KIGGS study, which the anti-vaccines used to show that their children suffered fewer diseases: the reality is that it is not clear that no group of children had better health than the other.
Three million lives are saved every year
On the other hand, it should be noted that vaccines could be saving, every year, three million children, so that, although they could be better (hopefully there were vaccines without side effects), they seem better than the other option, which is not to do nothing and wait to see whether or not it is spread by the virus or bacteria that is intended to be avoided.
In addition, the graphs that show the differences between epochs without vaccine and epochs with vaccine are obvious.
