(Thimerosal ban) Vaccine Rule Is Said to Hurt Health Efforts

[Orrex]

51. That's another discussion, but here's a brief answer:

Plumpynut allows concentrated delivery of nutrition and life-sustaining calories in way that literally nothing else has been able to match. So the choice is between a product that works astonishingly well with almost zero risk and a product that also presents little risk but which by comparison offers little success. Not really a choice at all.

In addition, it strikes me as a grotesque waste of resources to do skin-scrape allergy testing on a million children prior to providing plumpynut (to continue the example).

If someone wishes to opt out of a procedure, assuming that the person is capable of making such decisions (or has an advocate able to do so), then that person should be allowed to decide, but only when presented with and able to understand the solid, verifiable repercussions of either choice. That means that a few dissenting scientist should not be given equal weight as the (almost) entire body of accepted medicine; elevating the dissenters in that way actually destroys choice, rather than offering it.

Incidentally, the old "why not let people choose?" mantra is of the same stripe as "what's the harm?" and both of these slogans seek to create uncertainty were very little actually exists. It is a dishonest rhetorical tactic and is a cruel disservice to those desparate people who are most vulnerable and who are least able to make informed decisions.