Okay, so last week I took a chance by writing an article about a controversial issue that I have a strong stance on. I figured that I would get some not so nice feedback, but I didn't expect to be attacked in the way that I was. My article was supposed to be about the concept of vaccine shaming for those who opt not to vaccinate themselves or their children, whether it be completely or partially, and how that shaming needs to stop.

My negative feedback has encouraged me to do two things. The first, and most important, is to clarify my article's objective. My opinions, along with the sources I chose to include WEREN'T THE POINT. My objective was to say that everyone deserves a choice when it comes to what they put in their body, or what is put into their children's bodies.

I included basic arguments against vaccination, with links to supporting sources, to show that there is research outside the medical/governmental norms that many parents evaluate along with the typical information given. Some of that research debunks said gov't information - but again, that's obviously open to interpretation. I mentioned my mother because her background has led her to read various articles and books, not just those I included - which are by no means the only sources on this kind of thing. As a pharmacist and someone who has also studied various natural health practices, my mom has made it so that health is an open topic in our house, with our opinions and discussions usually tipping to the natural health side of the spectrum. I know a lot of people don't look outside what western medicine norms are, and that's their choice, but some do. And those that do, those who are non-vaxxers - which I saw in a comment and do agree is a better term for it - aren't stupid. My point was to show that there are intelligent people on both sides of the argument. I by no means covered the entirety of the argument, nor was I aiming to. I'm not a scientist, and it wasn't a research paper, nor was I claiming either of those things. Again, I was trying to briefly show some serious concerns people have because they - side effects that lead to harmful diseases, unnecessary inoculation etc. - are valid and deserve to be respected.

I also - and this goes along with the point - wasn't saying you can't at one point or another evaluate and decide one vaccine is worth its risks and another isn't. Or say, have kids, get them vaccinated, and then later learn more & decide that you'd rather not keep up with all their shots. That is what I meant when I said that I have been vaccinated, but not as completely as is recommended. My family and I selectively cherry-pick when it comes to vaccines, which is why I used the word most when discussing my concerns towards vaccines. We walk a middle line, empathizing and understanding bits from both sides, and I was trying to encourage that kind of understanding in others, especially when it comes to the non-traditional side of leaning away from vaccinations.

I was aiming to encourage respect, not be disrespected for opinions I have just as much right to have as anyone else does. Some of the comments I got were the epitome of non-vax shamers that I was trying to speak to. It's not like I looked up those few websites and made up my mind about everything vaccine related, nor do parents who are doing their own research. The decision to look at all information was all I wanted to point out by that one paragraph everyone got so hung-up about. I would also like to say that just because a website isn't approved by the government/western medicine standards/general public opinion doesn't mean it's crazy or untrue. Anyway, with the article itself, I simply wanted to open discussion about the side of an argument that often seems taboo, to let people on that side know they're not alone and to advocate for, again that special word, respect. I wasn't trying to change minds, only open them a little.

The one other thing I want to do is correct myself. Yes, I made a generalization about the CDC, and I should not have done so. I should have said that in some cases, their information isn't, or turns out to be, not the most accurate. They make mistakes, like choosing not to or failing to share information, as in the report I sited. Maybe it is my background of looking for sources of health information outside the western norm, but I didn't think that it is such a shocker that sometimes, in some cases, the information we are given is for a political reason. It has been suggested, if not shown in some cases that large corporations in the health field make some of their moves for profit, rather than to better consumers. I made a generalization rather than explaining my distrust of certain healthcare information. I shouldn't have done that, and I'm acknowledging that. I also should have either elaborated or left out the comment I made about on relying on my own natural immunity. I meant that I rely on it more than others who are fully vaccinated, but that discussion area gets gray and goes further in depth than my article's aim.

Anyway, I'm done with this now. I have the same message I was aiming for last time: there's no need to hate or shame or disrespect. We're all entitled to make our own healthcare decisions.