ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Vaccines are crucial |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Vaccines are crucial

I was distressed to read Hank Baughman’s letter “Vaccines are safe?” (March 3, TribLIVE) and to think that it might spur some parents to delay or skip some vaccines.

In Washington state, where vaccine exemptions are allowed, at least 69 children have contracted measles this year — 43 percent of the 159 cases nationwide. Before the measles vaccine was made available in 1963, there were approximately 48,000 hospitalizations and 500 deaths every year. Vaccines also guard against other childhood diseases, including mumps, whooping cough and rubella. During the 1964-65 rubella epidemic, 11,000 babies exposed to the virus in utero were born deaf, 3,500 were born blind and 1,800 were born developmentally disabled. The vaccine for rubella was available by the late 1960s.

Some anti-vaxxers cite physician Andrew Wakefield, who published a paper in the late 1990s indicating a link between the childhood vaccine MMR and autism. His paper was retracted after it was found he falsified data, and he was stripped of his medical license. There have been at least 12 large-scale studies which have found no link between vaccines and autism.

The World Health Organization has labeled “vaccine hesitancy” one of the 10 global health threats for 2019. Vaccines create “herd immunity”; if enough people have their shots, diseases can’t spread as easily and that protects people whose immune systems are already compromised.

For those of you thinking your child will be safe because everyone else is getting the vaccine, please think of others in your community whose continued well-being might just depend on you.

Beverly Hritz


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.